ArticleJournal of medicine and life2026
Antibiotic stewardship and safety in office-based transrectal prostate biopsy: a single-center retrospective analysis of complications.
Article in Journal of medicine and life, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging has improved risk stratification and lesion-directed sampling in suspected prostate cancer. MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy targets MRI-visible lesions, whereas systematic biopsy provides non-targeted glandular sampling. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic yield of fusion and systematic biopsy in a single-center paired cohort and to explore biopsy-to-surgical pathology concordance in operated patients. This retrospective study included 138 men who underwent both fusion-targeted and systematic biopsy during the same diagnostic work-up. The primary endpoint was overall prostate cancer detection; secondary endpoints included clinically significant prostate cancer detection, discordance between methods, PI-RADS-stratified detection, complications, and exploratory surgical pathology findings. Clinically significant cancer was defined as a Gleason score ≥3+4 / ISUP Grade Group ≥2. Fusion biopsy detected prostate cancer in 65/138 men (47.1%) versus 56/138 (40.6%) for systematic biopsy; combined biopsy detected cancer in 72/138 (52.2%). Fusion-only detection occurred in 16 patients (11.6%) and systematic-only detection in 7 (5.1%). The paired difference for overall cancer detection did not reach statistical significance (exact McNemar
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.