ArticleIndian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India
Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion-guided targeted biopsy and ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy for prior negative prostate biopsy: A meta-analysis.
Article in Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Editorial comment: Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion-guided targeted biopsy and ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy for prior negative prostate biopsy: A meta-analysis.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of IndiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The comparative efficacy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasound fusion-guided targeted biopsy (MRI-TBx) versus systematic ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS-Bx) for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) in men with prior negative biopsies remains clinically undefined. Methods: This Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-adherent meta-analysis searched Web of Science, PubMed, and EMBASE (through December 2024) for studies comparing MRI-TBx and TRUS-Bx in repeat biopsy cohorts. Pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a fixed-effects model. Results: Pooled analysis of seven studies (including two randomized trials) involving 459 patients with prior negative biopsies showed that the overall cancer detection rates were comparable: 73% (172/235) with MRI-TBx versus 77% (181/235) with TRUS-Bx (RR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.82-1.14, Conclusions: Although aggregate detection rates are comparable, MRI-TBx and TRUS-Bx exhibit complementary strengths: MRI-TBx reduces overdiagnosis of indolent cancer, whereas TRUS-Bx ensures sampling of anterior tumors.
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.