Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41634333›Full record

SynthesisProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2026

Comparative diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric-MRI and Micro-ultrasound for clinically significant prostate cancer-a bivariate meta-analysis of prospective studies.

Carlos A Garcia-Becerra, Maria I Arias-Gallardo, Jesus E Juarez-Garcia, Veronica Soltero-Molinar, Adel J El Rassi, Mariabelen I Rivera-Rocha, Luis F Parra-Camaño, Martha Ruiz, Natalia Garcia-Becerra, Maurício D Cordeiro and 1 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Carlos A Garcia-Becerra *Research Department, Urovallarta Medical Center, Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. agbcarlos94@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2838-6251
Maria I Arias-GallardoResearch Department, Urovallarta Medical Center, Puerto Vallarta, Mexico.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-4433-5345
Jesus E Juarez-GarciaResearch Department, Urovallarta Medical Center, Puerto Vallarta, Mexico.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-5027-7540
Veronica Soltero-MolinarBasic Science Institute, School of Medicine, Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, México.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-2634-5427
Adel J El RassiUrology Department, Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Uberlândia, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4918-9524
Mariabelen I Rivera-RochaResearch Department, Urovallarta Medical Center, Puerto Vallarta, Mexico.
Luis F Parra-CamañoResearch Department, Urovallarta Medical Center, Puerto Vallarta, Mexico.
Martha RuizRadiology Department, Grupo Diagnosti-k, Guadalajara, Mexico.
Natalia Garcia-Becerra *Research Department, Urovallarta Medical Center, Puerto Vallarta, Mexico.
Maurício D CordeiroUrology Department, Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo - ICESP/, São Paulo, Brazil.
Carlos M García-Gutiérrez *Research Department, Urovallarta Medical Center, Puerto Vallarta, Mexico.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9779-1889

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProstate cancer (PCa) remains a leading cause of cancer-related mortality in men. While multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) is an established tool for detecting clinically significant PCa (csPCa), it is limited by cost, access, and acquisition time. Micro-ultrasound (Micro-US) offers real-time imaging with potential advantages in accessibility and integration into routine care. This systematic review and meta-analysis (SR/MA) aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of Micro-US versus mpMRI in detecting csPCa, based exclusively on prospective evidence.

methodsA protocol-registered SR/MA (INPLASY202540027) was conducted following PRISMA and PICOTT frameworks. Prospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials published between 2012 and March 2025 comparing micro-US and mpMRI for csPCa detection, using biopsy or prostatectomy specimens as reference standards, were included. Bivariate random-effects models were used to estimate pooled sensitivity, specificity, and summary ROC curves. Positive/negative predictive values (PPV/NPV) were calculated using pooled prevalence and literature-based prevalence values. Meta-regression assessed modality differences and potential effect modifiers.

resultsEight prospective studies (n = 2626 patients) met the inclusion criteria, 1 randomized controlled trial and 7 prospective cohorts. Micro-US demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.87 (95%CI: 0.80-0.92) and specificity of 0.25 (95% CI: 0.17-0.36), while mpMRI showed a sensitivity of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.81-0.93) and specificity of 0.30 (95% CI: 0.18-0.46). sROC confidence regions overlapped for both modalities. Meta-regression detected no significant difference in sensitivity (P = 0.72) but a significant difference in specificity favoring mpMRI (P = 0.003). PPVs were modest (0.41-0.46), and NPVs were high (0.72-0.80) across prevalence scenarios.

conclusionMicro-US demonstrates sensitivity comparable to mpMRI for csPCa screening before confirmatory biopsy, although mpMRI retains superior specificity. Micro-US may serve as an accessible alternative or complementary modality, but further high-quality prospective studies are needed to strengthen comparative evidence.

Indexed as

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsHumansMaleProspective StudiesUltrasonography

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.