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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Whiting, P., Rutjes, A. W., Reitsma, J. B., Bossuyt, P. M., & Kleijnen, J. (2003) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-3-25 · Cited by 3,592
Self-citationSystematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta‐Analysis in Context
(2001) · doi:10.1002/9780470693926 · Cited by 1,693
Cited by
Heidenreich, A., Bellmunt, J., Bolla, M., Joniau, S., Mason, M., Matveev, V., Mottet, N., Schmid, H.-P., van der Kwast, T., Wiegel, T., et al. (2011) · European Urology · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2010.10.039 · Cited by 1,492
Cornford, P., van den Bergh, R. C. N., Briers, E., Van den Broeck, T., Brunckhorst, O., Darraugh, J., Eberli, D., De Meerleer, G., De Santis, M., Farolfi, A., et al. (2024) · European Urology · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2024.03.027 · Cited by 1,246
Schoots, I. G., Roobol, M. J., Nieboer, D., Bangma, C. H., Steyerberg, E. W., & Hunink, M. G. M. (2015) · European Urology · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.037 · Cited by 687
Delongchamps, N. B., Peyromaure, M., Schull, A., Beuvon, F., Bouazza, N., Flam, T., Zerbib, M., Muradyan, N., Legman, P., & Cornud, F. (2013) · Journal of Urology · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.195 · Cited by 275
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.