SynthesisProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2025
Head-to-head comparison of diagnostic test accuracy between biparametric and multiparametric MRI: an updated systematic review and bivariate meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Micro-ultrasonography- vs MRI-targeted biopsy in prostate cancer: Updated systematic review and meta-analysis.BJU international · 2026Pooled it
- Contrast-free MRI-first screening in young asymptomatic men: Prostate characteristics and cancer detection rates.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026Article
- Best of 2025 in prostate cancer and prostatic diseases.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProstate Cancer (PCa) is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality globally. Clinically significant PCa (CsPCa) is associated with more aggressive disease, making accurate diagnosis crucial. Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (Mp-MRI) is a well-established tool for PCa detection, but the dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) sequence raises concerns due to cost, risks, and patient experience. Biparametric MRI (Bp-MRI) has emerged as an alternative, but its diagnostic performance compared to Mp-MRI has not been thoroughly examined through a systematic review and meta-analysis in recent years.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare the diagnostic accuracy of Bp-MRI and Mp-MRI for detecting CsPCa by assessing the databases MEDLINE/PubMed, CENTRAL Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Studies published between 2012 and 2024 that compared Bp-MRI and Mp-MRI using histopathological analysis as the reference standard were included. Data were extracted to obtain diagnostic test accuracy measurements (sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, positive and negative likelihood ratios) and study characteristics. Statistical analysis involved two bivariate random-effects models, a summary Receiver Operating Characteristic (sROC) curve, and meta-regression models assessing the comparison of both diagnostic test accuracies and the interaction of different study-level covariates.
resultsNineteen studies involving 5,173 patients were included. Mp-MRI demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.93) and a specificity of 0.64 (95% CI: 0.50-0.76), while Bp-MRI showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85-0.92) and a specificity of 0.73 (95% CI: 0.62-0.82). Both modalities showed similar diagnostic performance with overlapping sROC curves. Meta-regression revealed no statistically significant difference between the two tools, and the study-level covariates did not influence the results.
conclusionBp-MRI is a viable alternative to Mp-MRI for detecting CsPCa, with comparable diagnostic accuracy, especially when contrast agents are a concern. Further prospective randomized studies are needed to confirm these findings. REGISTRY: PROSPERO (CRD42024552125).
Indexed as
Identifiers
40696165What 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.