ArticleThe Canadian journal of urology2026
Prostate volume on transrectal ultrasound: comparing ultrasounds performed by urologists to radiologists.
Article in The Canadian journal of urology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to assess the precision of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) measurement of the prostate volume when performed by a urologist compared with a radiologist. To date, no prior research has directly compared the accuracy of prostate volume measurements between these two groups.
methodsA retrospective study was conducted using data from 307 men who underwent enucleation of the prostate between 2020 and 2022 in two Belgian hospitals (University Hospital Leuven and Maria Middelares Hospital [Ghent]). A comparison was made between the prostate volume measured on ultrasound pre-operatively and the measured resected volume after enucleation. We compared these differences in volume in men who had their ultrasound performed by a urologist (N = 114), those who had it performed by a radiologist (N = 175), and those who had an MRI pre-operatively as a measurement (N = 18).
resultsA multivariate regression to predict measured prostate volume was performed with age, estimated prostate volume, and pathology result as predictors, which was significant at α = 0.05, F(3, 302) = 168.104, p < 0.001, RAdjusted2 = 0.686. Adding the imaging modality (ultrasound performed by a urologist or radiologist, or MRI) to the base model did not significantly improve the prediction of measured prostate volume, F-change(3, 299) = 0.367, p = 0.777. Seven outliers were identified (|Z-score| > 2), of which six measurements were performed by resident urologists (N = 19) and one by a certified urologist (N = 95).
conclusionThis study demonstrates no evidence that prostate volume measurements performed by radiologists using ultrasound are more accurate than those performed by urologists. The higher number of outliers among resident urologists likely reflects the well-known learning curve associated with prostate ultrasound and highlights the importance of standardized training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42682047What 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.