ReviewBiomedicines2026
Transperineal Versus Transrectal Prostate Biopsy in the MRI-Targeted Era: A Contemporary Narrative Review.
Review in Biomedicines, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prostate biopsy is among the most frequently performed diagnostic procedures in men, and two shifts have reshaped it over the past decade: the incorporation of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) with targeted sampling, and migration from the transrectal to the transperineal route. Because these changes are usually adopted together, the practical choice facing many units is between a contemporary transperineal MRI-targeted pathway and the historical transrectal systematic one. This narrative review weights cancer detection, procedure-related harms, and implementation approximately equally, drawing on evidence that isolates route from targeting wherever possible. Across randomized trials and meta-analyses, the two pathways achieve broadly comparable detection of clinically significant cancer (ISUP grade group ≥ 2), although the transperineal route samples anterior and apical tumors more effectively and the largest randomized comparison reported a modest transperineal advantage. The principal transperineal benefit is a marked reduction in infectious complications, enabling reduced antibiotic prophylaxis and improved stewardship; its main cost is greater procedural discomfort. We review mpMRI and PI-RADS with illustrative examples, fusion technique, cost-effectiveness, special populations, emerging adjuncts, and divergent guidelines, concluding that route and targeting decisions are best individualized, with infection risk and lesion location dominant.
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.