SynthesisBJU international2026
Micro-ultrasonography- vs MRI-targeted biopsy in prostate cancer: Updated 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Detection to Surveillance: The Evolving Role of Micro-Ultrasound in Prostate Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Micro-ultrasound versus mpMRI for targeted prostate biopsy: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and clinical integration.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo refine prostate cancer (PCa) pathways by comparing micro-ultrasonography-targeted biopsy (micro-US-TBx) with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-TBx for detecting clinically significant PCa (csPCa) and by evaluating diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value).
methodsThe Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE; PubMed), Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched on 4 July 2025 and updated 5 August 2025, without language/date limits. Eligible randomised and observational studies compared micro-US-TBx vs MRI-TBx (± systematic biopsy) in men with suspected PCa or on active surveillance; csPCa was Gleason Grade Group ≥2. Two reviewers screened/extracted per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines; quality was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Detection ratios (DRs) were pooled with random-effects models; diagnostic accuracy used a bivariate random-effects model from 2 × 2 tables. Certainty of evidence was rated with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework.
resultsA total of 22 studies (micro-US-TBx = 5581; MRI-TBx = 5937) were included. Micro-US-TBx detected 2037 csPCa cases and MRI-TBx 2043. The pooled DR (micro-US-TBx vs MRI-TBx) was 1.04 (95% confidence interval 0.95-1.15; I
conclusionThe micro-US-TBx demonstrated csPCa detection and diagnostic accuracy comparable to MRI-TBx. Given its real-time imaging capability, accessibility, and potential workflow advantages, micro-US-TBx may represent a valuable complementary tool within contemporary PCa diagnostic pathways. Further cost-effectiveness studies are warranted to better define its role in clinical practice.
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.