ReviewInternational urology and nephrology2026
Micro-ultrasound guided versus multiparametric MRI-guided prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in International urology and nephrology, 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate patients with suspected prostate cancer, multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) has been the standard imaging modality employed. However, mpMRI is costly and not universally available. Microultrasound (mUS), a novel 29-MHz modality, offers high-resolution, real-time prostate imaging and may guide biopsy with comparable diagnostic accuracy. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares mUS-guided and mpMRI-guided prostate biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa).
methodsA systematic search was conducted up to April 2025, in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO ID CRD420251033768). Comparative studies reporting PCa detection between mUS and mpMRI were included.
resultsTwelve studies comprising 4318 patients (3475 mUS; 3615 mpMRI) were included. There was no significant difference between modalities in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), both overall (RR 0.97; 95%CI 0.90-1.05) and with targeted biopsy (RR 1.05; 95%CI 0.97-1.14). Overall cancer detection was also comparable (RR 1.00; 95%CI 0.87-1.15), as was Grade Group 1 prostate cancer detection, whether assessed across all biopsies (RR 1.00; 95%CI 0.72-1.39) or with targeted biopsy alone (RR 0.90; 95%CI 0.64-1.27). Weighted pooled values showed mUS had a sensitivity of 93.2%, specificity of 23.3%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 46.4%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 81.2%, compared with mpMRI's sensitivity of 87.5%, specificity of 25.7%, PPV of 44.6%, and NPV of 73.7%.
conclusionmUS-guided biopsy demonstrates diagnostic performance comparable to mpMRI-guided biopsy for PCa detection and represents a promising alternative or adjunct to mpMRI in prostate cancer diagnostic pathways.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42295630What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.