Diagnostic accuracy and safety of image-guided transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy for clinically significant prostate cancer: a GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the diagnostic performance and complication profiles of transperineal biopsy (TPBx) versus transrectal biopsy (TRBx) for prostate cancer, incorporating recent randomized and large observational studies. METHODS: Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched till April 2025. Studies directly comparing TPBx and TRBx were included. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2.0 for randomized trials and the Newcastle - Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. Subgroup analyses and a GRADE assessment were performed to evaluate the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: = 0.001), though the certainty of evidence was low to moderate. Heterogeneity was moderate to high. TPBx also showed lower infection-related complications and comparable overall events, though procedure-related pain was slightly higher. CONCLUSION: TPBx offers improved diagnostic yield and lower infection risk compared with TRBx, with comparable safety. However, given the moderate heterogeneity and limited high-quality RCTs, further confirmatory trials are necessary. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO identifier is CRD420251035763.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".