ReviewUrology research & practice2025
Meta Analysis of Efficacy and Safety of Prostate Biopsy: A Comparison Between Transperineal and Transrectal Approach.
Review in Urology research & practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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
Improved prostate biopsy procedures have been developed to overcome traditional limitations, aiming to enhance cancer diagnosis accuracy. To assess the existing knowledge of the effectiveness and risks linked to transperineal (TP) vs. transrectal (TR) prostate biopsy. Approaches: a comprehensive search was carried out in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library to locate all pertinent papers published till June 8, 2023. Data on cancer detection rate and complications after prostate biopsy were gathered and analyzed via Review Manager software. A subgroup analysis was conducted to evaluate the influence of the study type. A total of 19 publications, involving 80133 patients with suspicion of prostate cancer who underwent prostate biopsy, were enrolled in the analysis. The pooled estimate demonstrated no significant differences in the cancer detection rate between TR and TP (risk difference (RD)=0.03; 95% CI: -0.01 to 0.08; P = .12). In terms of complications, the TP approach significantly decreased the risk of rectal bleeding (odds ratio (OR)=0.24; 95% CI: 0.12-0.51; P < .001), fever and urinary tract infection (OR=0.28; 95% CI: 0.15-0.52; P < .001), and sepsis (OR=0.50; 95% CI: 0.28-0.90; P=.02) compared to the TR approach. In conclusion, there was no significant disparity in the cancer detection rate between TP and TR approaches. However, the TP strategy exhibited an advantage over TR due to a reduced risk of infection and rectal bleeding. Further research is needed to validate these results and develop a more efficient diagnostic approach for prostate cancer.
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.