Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 518

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Diagnostic Value of Systematic Biopsy Methods in the Investigation of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

Open access
Eichler, Klaus, Hempel, Susanne, Wilby, Jennifer, Myers, Lindsey, Bachmann, Lucas M., Kleijnen, Jos·2006·Journal of Urology

Abstract

PURPOSE: Several new extended prostate biopsy schemes (greater than 6 cores) have been proposed. We compared the cancer detection rates and complications of different extended prostate biopsy schemes for diagnostic evaluation in men scheduled for biopsy to identify the optimal scheme. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a systematic review we searched 13 electronic databases, screened relevant urological journals and the reference lists of included studies, and contacted experts. We included studies that compared different systematic prostate biopsy methods using sequential sampling or a randomized design in men scheduled for biopsy due to suspected prostate cancer. We pooled data using a random effects model when appropriate. RESULTS: We analyzed 87 studies with a total of 20,698 patients. We pooled data from 68 studies comparing a total of 94 extended schemes with the standard sextant scheme. An increasing number of cores were significantly associated with the cancer yield. Laterally directed cores increased the yield significantly (p = 0.003), whereas centrally directed cores did not. Schemes with 12 cores that took additional laterally directed cores detected 31% more cancers (95% CI 25 to 37) than the sextant scheme. Schemes with 18 to 24 cores did not detect significantly more cancers. Adverse events for schemes up to 12 cores were similar to those for the sextant pattern. Adverse event reporting was poor for schemes with 18 to 24 cores. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate biopsy schemes consisting of 12 cores that add laterally directed cores to the standard sextant scheme strike the balance between the cancer detection rate and adverse events. Taking more than 12 cores added no significant benefit.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0022-5347(05)00957-2

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 518

Metadata

Authors
Eichler, K., Hempel, S., Wilby, J., Myers, L., Bachmann, L. M., & Kleijnen, J.
Venue
Journal of Urology
Published
2006-05
Volume
175
Issue
5
Pages
1605-1612
ISSN
  • 0022-5347 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-3792
OpenAlex
W1983419716
Cited by
518
References
3
FWCI
3.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Diagnostic Value of Systematic Biopsy Methods in the Investigation of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0022-5347(05)00957-2
The paper
Eichler, K., Hempel, S., Wilby, J., Myers, L., Bachmann, L. M., & Kleijnen, J. (2006). Diagnostic Value of Systematic Biopsy Methods in the Investigation of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review. Journal of Urology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(05)00957-2

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.