ArticleOpen medicine (Warsaw, Poland)2024
Application value of multi-parameter magnetic resonance image-transrectal ultrasound cognitive fusion in prostate biopsy.
Article in Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the effect of three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction-assisted cognitive fusion in targeted prostate biopsy. Results: There was no significant difference in the detection rate of prostate cancer (PCa) between targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy, and there was significant difference in the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) between targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy. In the low prostate total specific antigen (tPSA) group, there was no statistically significant difference in the detection rate of prostate cancer between the two biopsy modalities. However, compared with systematic puncture, targeted puncture had a higher detection rate for csPCa and a lower detection rate for clinically insignificant prostate cancer (ciPCa), and the difference was statistically significant. In the high tPSA group, there was no significant difference in the detection rate of PCa, csPCa, and ciPCa between the two biopsy types. Single needle positive rate of targeted puncture (29.77%) was significantly higher than that of systematic puncture (10.28%). Conclusions: The detection rate of csPCa in 3D reconstruction-assisted cognitive fusion targeted prostate biopsy is better than that of 12-needle systematic biopsy, which markedly improved the positive rate of prostate biopsy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.