SynthesisBJU international2026
Transrectal vs transperineal prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BJU international, 2026. 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.
- Factors Associated with Pain During Transperineal Prostate Fusion Biopsy Under Local Anaesthesia: A Prospective Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Effect of Anesthesia Type on Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Detection in Transperineal MRI-Targeted Biopsy.Cancers · 2026Article
- From Detection to Surveillance: The Evolving Role of Micro-Ultrasound in Prostate Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Transperineal (TP) Versus Transrectal (TR) Prostate Biopsy: Efficacy, Safety, and Systemic Challenges-A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) and local anaesthetic transperineal (LATP) biopsy.
methodsA systematic review of randomised control trials and prospective studies meeting eligibility criteria was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
resultsA total of 12 studies with 8497 patients were included. LATP biopsy was performed in 3961 patients and TRUS biopsy in 4536. Patient characteristics were comparable in both groups. Infection (risk ratio [RR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-0.84, P < 0.001) and sepsis rates were significantly lower in the LATP group (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.08-0.33, P < 0.001) and urinary retention rates were comparable (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.61-1.25, P = 0.46). Overall cancer detection rates were significantly higher in LATP biopsy (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03-1.10, P < 0.001) as were Gleason Grade Group 2-5 or clinically significant cancer detection rates (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.06-1.18, P < 0.001). Gleason GG 1 detection rates were comparable (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82-1.04, P = 0.20).
conclusionThe LATP biopsy is associated with lower rates of infection and sepsis compared to TRUS biopsy. The LATP biopsy also detects a higher overall incidence of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason Grade Group 2-5).
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.