ArticleBJU international2026
Structured micro-ultrasonography training improves prostate cancer detection and management decisions.
Article in BJU international, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate whether a structured 2-day micro-ultrasonography (microUS) training curriculum improves diagnostic performance and management decisions for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection in novice readers. SUBJECTS AND
methodsA total of 20 participants with limited microUS experience completed the Mannheim Micro-Ultrasound Curriculum, comprising didactic modules, supervised case interpretation, and 85 reference cases. Pre- and post-training performance was assessed on a fixed, biopsy confirmed test set of 100 cases (50 csPCa confirmed on radical prostatectomy, 50 biopsy negative). Each participant interpreted 10 randomised cases per timepoint, with no case assessed twice per reader and each case being assessed once before and after training in each training session. The primary endpoint was change in cohort-level accuracy for csPCa detection; secondary endpoints included sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), Prostate Risk Identification using microUS (PRI-MUS) performance, and management recommendations. Mixed-effects models were applied as a robustness analysis.
resultsTraining significantly improved pooled cohort level accuracy from 50.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 43.4-57.6%) to 64.5% (95% CI 57.4-71.1%; P = 0.006), sensitivity from 70.0% (95% CI 60.0-78.8%) to 92.0% (95% CI 84.8-96.5%; P = 0.001), and negative predictive value from 50.8% (95% CI 37.7-63.9%) to 82.2% (95% CI 67.9-92.0%; P = 0.001), whereas specificity did not increase significantly (31.0% vs 37.0%; P = 0.46). The AUC for the overall subjective risk score rose from 0.53 (95% CI 0.45-0.61) to 0.70 (95% CI 0.63-0.77; P = 0.002). Mixed-effects modelling confirmed a significant training effect (odds ratio 2.13, 95% CI 1.20-3.79; P = 0.01), reproducible across two independent sessions. PRI-MUS scoring improvements were not statistically significant. Overall decision correctness improved from 67% to 83% (P = 0.001), with poor-quality decisions decreasing from 33% to 17%.
conclusionStructured image-based microUS training significantly improved cohort-level diagnostic performance and management decisions in novice readers in a controlled reader-study. These findings support structured training and quality assurance before independent clinical implementation of microUS.
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.