{"title":"超声引导下经会阴与经直肠前列腺活检：诊断准确性和并发症发生率的荟萃分析。","authors":"Tao Wu, Yanchun Xing","doi":"10.1515/med-2024-1039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We conducted a systematic review to compare the diagnostic utility of ultrasound-guided transperineal (TP) and transrectal (TR) prostate biopsy methods for prostate cancer detection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases up to October 30, 2023, for relevant studies, screening the literature and assessing bias independently.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven trials were analyzed using relative risk and 95% confidence intervals, with no evidence of publication bias. Diagnostic rates showed no significant difference between TP and TR biopsies (mean difference [MD]: 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91-1.14, <i>P</i> = 0.56). Prostate volume analysis also showed no significant difference (MD: -0.07, 95% CI: -0.73 to 0.59, <i>P</i> < 0.0001, combined effect size <i>P</i> = 0.83). Similarly, PSA levels were comparable between TP and TR biopsies (MD: 0.93, 95% CI: -0.44 to 2.30, <i>P</i> < 0.0001, combined effect size <i>P</i> = 0.18).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both biopsy methods exhibit similar diagnostic accuracy; however, TP has a lower risk of biopsy.</p>","PeriodicalId":19715,"journal":{"name":"Open Medicine","volume":"19 1","pages":"20241039"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11459270/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ultrasound-guided transperineal vs transrectal prostate biopsy: A meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy and complication rates.\",\"authors\":\"Tao Wu, Yanchun Xing\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/med-2024-1039\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We conducted a systematic review to compare the diagnostic utility of ultrasound-guided transperineal (TP) and transrectal (TR) prostate biopsy methods for prostate cancer detection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases up to October 30, 2023, for relevant studies, screening the literature and assessing bias independently.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven trials were analyzed using relative risk and 95% confidence intervals, with no evidence of publication bias. Diagnostic rates showed no significant difference between TP and TR biopsies (mean difference [MD]: 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91-1.14, <i>P</i> = 0.56). Prostate volume analysis also showed no significant difference (MD: -0.07, 95% CI: -0.73 to 0.59, <i>P</i> < 0.0001, combined effect size <i>P</i> = 0.83). Similarly, PSA levels were comparable between TP and TR biopsies (MD: 0.93, 95% CI: -0.44 to 2.30, <i>P</i> < 0.0001, combined effect size <i>P</i> = 0.18).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both biopsy methods exhibit similar diagnostic accuracy; however, TP has a lower risk of biopsy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19715,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Medicine\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"20241039\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11459270/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/med-2024-1039\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/med-2024-1039","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
研究目的我们进行了一项系统性综述，比较超声引导下经会阴（TP）和经直肠（TR）前列腺活检方法在前列腺癌检测中的诊断效用：我们检索了截至2023年10月30日的PubMed、Embase、Web of Science和Cochrane数据库中的相关研究，筛选文献并独立评估偏倚：采用相对风险和95%置信区间对11项试验进行了分析，没有证据表明存在发表偏倚。TP和TR活检的诊断率无明显差异（平均差[MD]：1.03，95% 置信区间 [CI]：0.91-1.14, P = 0.56).前列腺体积分析也未显示出明显差异（MD：-0.07，95% CI：-0.73 至 0.59，P < 0.0001，综合效应大小 P = 0.83）。同样，TP和TR活检的PSA水平也相当（MD：0.93，95% CI：-0.44至2.30，P < 0.0001，综合效应大小P = 0.18）：两种活检方法的诊断准确性相似；但TP活检的风险较低。
Ultrasound-guided transperineal vs transrectal prostate biopsy: A meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy and complication rates.
Objectives: We conducted a systematic review to compare the diagnostic utility of ultrasound-guided transperineal (TP) and transrectal (TR) prostate biopsy methods for prostate cancer detection.
Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases up to October 30, 2023, for relevant studies, screening the literature and assessing bias independently.
Results: Eleven trials were analyzed using relative risk and 95% confidence intervals, with no evidence of publication bias. Diagnostic rates showed no significant difference between TP and TR biopsies (mean difference [MD]: 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91-1.14, P = 0.56). Prostate volume analysis also showed no significant difference (MD: -0.07, 95% CI: -0.73 to 0.59, P < 0.0001, combined effect size P = 0.83). Similarly, PSA levels were comparable between TP and TR biopsies (MD: 0.93, 95% CI: -0.44 to 2.30, P < 0.0001, combined effect size P = 0.18).
Conclusion: Both biopsy methods exhibit similar diagnostic accuracy; however, TP has a lower risk of biopsy.
期刊介绍：
Open Medicine is an open access journal that provides users with free, instant, and continued access to all content worldwide. The primary goal of the journal has always been a focus on maintaining the high quality of its published content. Its mission is to facilitate the exchange of ideas between medical science researchers from different countries. Papers connected to all fields of medicine and public health are welcomed. Open Medicine accepts submissions of research articles, reviews, case reports, letters to editor and book reviews.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
