ReviewBJUI compass2025
Transperineal prostate biopsy with freehand technique under local anaesthetic: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in BJUI compass, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Anesthesia Type on Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Detection in Transperineal MRI-Targeted Biopsy.Cancers · 2026Article
- Detection Rates of Prostate Cancer Across Prostatic Zones Using Freehand Single-Access Transperineal Fusion Biopsies.Cancers · 2025Article
- Transperineal prostate biopsy with freehand technique under local anaesthetic: A systematic review and meta-analysis.BJUI compass · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Transperineal prostate biopsy (TPPB) under local anaesthesia is a widely employed biopsy method, and is currently endorsed by the European Association of Urology (EAU). This review aimed to assess the pooled detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer using TPPB under local anaesthetic. Additionally, pain scores and complications were also reported. Methods: Our search was conducted in line with the most recent Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations up to August 2024. The study was registered on PROSPERO under the ID: CRD42024588824. An electronic search was conducted of the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases along with grey literature using the Google search engine. Results: In total, there were 2881 patients included in this review. Biopsy histology results were reported in 11 studies comprising 2781 cases. We observed a clinically significant prostate cancer rate of 52% (95% CI 44%-60%) for studies that employed both a mix of systematic and targeted biopsies and 26% (95% CI 23%-30%) when systematic biopsies alone were taken. The pooled rate was 48% (95% CI 37%-59%), overall. Complications after prostate biopsies were reported by 9 studies with a combined 2688 patients. There were 61 patients (2.3%) who had Clavien-Dindo (CD) 1-2 complications and three patients (0.1%) who had CD 3-5 complications. The pooled rate of CD 1 and 2 complications was 2% (95% CI 1%-4%). Conclusions: TPPB under local anaesthetic is a safe, efficacious and well-tolerated method of prostate biopsy when compared with other methods. Undertaking the procedure under local anaesthesia does not seem to lower cancer detection rates.
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.