ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2025
Comparison of prostate cancer detection rates and complications between transrectal ultrasound-guided transperineal and transrectal biopsies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting the upgrading of the International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group in nonclinically significant prostate cancer: a multicenter observational study.Asian journal of andrology · 2026Observational
- Transperineal (TP) Versus Transrectal (TR) Prostate Biopsy: Efficacy, Safety, and Systemic Challenges-A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Comparative Evaluation of Biological Techniques.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Standardizing Prostate MRI Reporting in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: The PRECISE Framework.Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided transperineal (TP) and transrectal (TR) approaches have been used for systematic prostate biopsy. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the cancer detection rates (CDRs) and associated complications between TP and TR prostate biopsies. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, China Wanfang data, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched for literature on TP and TR biopsies of the prostate from inception to September 2024. Results: A total of 20 studies were included in the meta-analysis of 2,979 and 2,610 patients undergoing TP and TR biopsies, respectively. The pooled analysis indicated no significant difference in the CDR between the TP and TR biopsies [relative risk (RR) =0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.92-1.04; P=0.46]. Compared to the TR approach, the TP approach was associated with a lower risk of rectal bleeding (RR =0.05; 95% CI: 0.02-0.13; P<0.001), urinary retention (RR =0.70; 95% CI: 0.49-0.99; P=0.046), and fever (RR =0.24, 95% CI: 0.15-0.39; P<0.001). However, the risk of pain after the procedure was higher in the TP group (RR =2.04; 95% CI: 1.47-2.82; P<0.001). No significant difference was found in the risk of hematuria between the two groups (RR =1.05; 95% CI: 0.91-1.22; P=0.52). Conclusions: TP and TR biopsies of the prostate have similar CDRs. Remarkably, compared to TR biopsy, TP biopsy involves a lower risk of rectal bleeding, urinary retention, and fever, but a higher risk of pain.
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.