The fate of urological systematic reviews registered in PROSPERO.

PURPOSE: To identify urologic systematic reviews (SRs) registered to PROSPERO that resulted in a publication, and to evaluate their methodological quality and concordance with their stated a priori protocols. METHODS: We searched PubMed to identify urologic SR protocols registered in PROSPERO that resulted in a publication and assessed their methodological quality and protocols in relation to their stated a priori protocols in PROSPERO. RESULTS: Of the 576 urologic SR protocols registered in PROSPERO up to December 2017, 201 (34.9%) resulted in a full SR publication, but only 40 (17.7%) updated their registration record accordingly. Publications were spread over 100 different journals, with a median time-to-publication of 29 months (95% CI 25.0-33.0). The most common topic by far was prostate cancer (59.7%), followed by voiding issues (15.3%), and renal transplantation (15.3%). Only little over half the reviews (52.74%) explicitly stated primary outcome(s) that matched the primary outcome of their corresponding PROSPERO protocol. Notable methodologic deviations from registered protocols included planned restriction on study design (33%), heterogeneity analysis (42%) and planned risk of bias analysis (65.2%). CONCLUSION: SR authors in urology are increasingly using PROSPERO to register their titles, but our findings indicate that registration alone is not a guarantor of a high-quality SR product. There appears to be a critical need to raise the bar for review authors registering protocols in PROSPERO, with an emphasis on transparency in their publication status updates as well as deviations from their a priori protocols.

Difference in MRI-guided biopsy cancer detection rates between individual clinicians.

OBJECTIVE: A number of studies have described the overall institutional learning curve for magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy but none have evaluated differences and interactions between clinicians. Therefore, we aim to measure and compare the cancer detection rates between individual radiologists and urologists at a single academic institution. METHODS: A consecutive sample of patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy at a single institution were included for analysis. The detection of any and clinically significant (Gleason score ≥3+4) prostate cancer was compared between radiologists and urologists after adjusting for relevant demographic and clinical characteristics. Analysis was conducted on a perlesion basis and only the results of the targeted cores were considered in the primary analysis. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-one patients with 418 lesions were included in the study. Prostate cancer of any grade was detected in 43.7% (183/418) of targeted lesions. There was no difference in the distribution of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) scores attributed by each radiologist (p = 0.43). The individual radiologist cancer detection rate for both overall and clinically significant cancer was similar across each PIRADS score except for the detection of any cancer in PIRADS 3 lesions (p = 0.03). There was no difference in the detection rates of any grade or clinically significant cancer between urologists. CONCLUSION: This single institutional analysis found that the performance of radiologists and urologists was largely comparable. Theonly variation observed was among radiologists for PIRADS 3 lesions.