MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2775222143 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.4660

The management of rectal bleeding following transrectal prostate biopsy: A review of the current literature

2017· review· en· W2775222143 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mark Quinlan, Damien Bolton, Rowan G. Casey

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstateUrologyRectumProstate biopsyBiopsyRadiologyGeneral surgeryInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Since the advent of prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based testing, transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy has become a standard part of the diagnostic pathway for prostate cancer (PCa). Rectal bleeding is one of the common side effects of this transrectal route. While rectal bleeding is usually mild and self-limiting, it can be life-threatening. In this article, we examine rectal bleeding post-TRUS-guided prostate biopsy and explore the literature to evaluate techniques and strategies aimed at preventing and managing this common and important complication. METHODS: A PubMed literature search was carried out using the keywords "transrectal-prostate-biopsy-bleed." A search of the bibliography of reviewed studies was also conducted. Additionally, papers in non-PubMed-listed journals of which the authors were aware were appraised. RESULTS: Numerous modifiable risk factors for this bleeding complication exist, particularly anticoagulants/antiplatelets and the number of core biopsies taken. Successfully described corrective measures for such rectal bleeding include tamponade (digital/packs/catheter/tampon/condom), endoscopic sclerotherapy/banding/clipping, radiological embolization, and surgical intervention. CONCLUSIONS: We advocate early consultation with the colorectal/gastroenterology and interventional radiology services and a progressive, stepwise approach to the management of post-biopsy rectal bleeding, starting with resuscitation and conservative tamponade measures, moving to endoscopic hemostasis ± radiological embolization ± transanal surgical methods. Given the infrequent but serious nature of major rectal bleeding after TRUS biopsy, we recommend the establishment of centralized databases or registries forthwith to prospectively capture such data. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive look specifically at the management of post-TRUS biopsy rectal bleeding.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207