ArticleMedicine2026
Diagnosis of prostate cancer by multi-modal ultrasound imaging.
Article in Medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To evaluate the diagnostic performance of multi-modal ultrasound imaging, combining transrectal ultrasound (TRUS), shear wave elastography (SWE), and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), for differentiating benign and malignant prostate lesions, and to provide new evidence for the early diagnosis of prostate cancer. A total of 85 patients who prospectively underwent multi-modal ultrasound examination, ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy, and pathological and immunohistochemical marker detection at our hospital between September 2022 and June 2023 were included. All ultrasound examinations and biopsies were performed within a 2-week interval. The diagnostic performance of TRUS, SWE, CEUS, and multi-modal ultrasound imaging was compared, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) calculated for all accuracy measures. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 89.80% (95% CI: 77.81 to 95.83), 86.11% (95% CI: 70.98-93.91), 88.24%, 89.80%, and 86.11% for TRUS; 85.71% (95% CI: 72.87-92.96), 72.22% (95% CI: 55.72-84.09), 80.00%, 80.77%, and 78.79% for SWE; 93.88% (95% CI: 83.13-97.97), 91.67% (95% CI: 77.46-97.20), 92.94%, 93.88%, and 91.67% for CEUS; and 97.96% (95% CI: 89.21-99.65), 94.44% (95% CI: 81.34-98.48), 96.47%, 96.00%, and 97.14% for multi-modal ultrasound imaging, respectively. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) were 0.880 (95% CI: 0.808-0.952), 0.790 (95% CI: 0.694-0.886), 0.928 (95% CI: 0.872-0.984), and 0.962 (95% CI: 0.924-1.000) for TRUS, SWE, CEUS, and multi-modal ultrasound imaging, respectively. The diagnostic performance of multi-modal ultrasound was significantly superior to that of TRUS and SWE (P < .05). Multi-modal ultrasound imaging demonstrates complementary diagnostic advantages, particularly for prostate tumors with atypical ultrasound features that are difficult to diagnose by a single modality. For these tumors, multi-modal ultrasound imaging improves diagnostic accuracy and provides a reliable basis for the differential diagnosis of prostate tumors, warranting further clinical application.
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.