ReviewCentral European journal of urology2025
Prostate biopsy in patients without rectal access: a systematic review and proportional meta-analysis.
Review in Central European journal of urology, 2025. 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
Introduction: Historically, the anal canal plays a substantial role in both screening and diagnosis of pro-state cancer with digital rectal examination (DRE) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided biopsy, respectively. However, in patients with a prior history of abdominoperineal resection the transrectal route towards the prostate capsule cannot be utilized and thus alternative approaches have to be employed. The aim of this systematic review and proportional meta-analysis is to evaluate the available alternative prostate biopsy techniques in patients without rectal access. Material and methods: The systematic literature review was performed using MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, and the CENTRAL register for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The following search algorithm was used: "resection of rectum" OR "abdominoperineal resection" OR "without rectal access" AND "prostate biopsy" (PROSPERO 2023 CRD42023459080). Results: A total of 21 studies and 203 patients were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis, while 6 different prostate biopsy techniques were detected in the current literature. The transperineal approach under transperineal US (TPUS) and the transgluteal approach guided by computed tomography (CT) were associated with 0.74 [0.48; 0.94] and 0.70 [0.49; 0.89] pooled diagnostic yield estimates as well as 0.01 [0.00; 0.01] and 0 [0.00; 0.01] pooled complication rate estimates. The performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) prior to transgluteal CT-guided prostate biopsy seemed to significantly affect the biopsy result (p = 0.0002). Conclusions: Based on current data, the TPUS-guided prostate biopsy has the highest pooled diagnostic yield estimate. However, this conclusion is based on poor evidence and more reliable and well-organized studies are needed to thoroughly explore this problem.
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.