| scholarly article | Q13442814 |
| P50 | author | Jan Verbeek | Q51611013 |
| P2093 | author name string | Chris H Bangma | |
| Monique J Roobol | |||
| Daan Nieboer | |||
| Nuno Pereira-Azevedo | |||
| P2860 | cites work | Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy | Q26822966 |
| Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012 | Q27861047 | ||
| A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data | Q31037136 | ||
| Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator 2.0 for the prediction of low- vs high-grade prostate cancer | Q33672510 | ||
| Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. | Q34041688 | ||
| Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement | Q34288506 | ||
| Quality-of-life effects of prostate-specific antigen screening. | Q34294102 | ||
| Advanced methods in meta-analysis: multivariate approach and meta-regression. | Q34523076 | ||
| Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. | Q35495406 | ||
| The added value of percentage of free to total prostate-specific antigen, PCA3, and a kallikrein panel to the ERSPC risk calculator for prostate cancer in prescreened men. | Q35532150 | ||
| Improving prediction models with new markers: a comparison of updating strategies | Q36146528 | ||
| Net benefit approaches to the evaluation of prediction models, molecular markers, and diagnostic tests | Q36495833 | ||
| Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures | Q36617895 | ||
| Evaluation of the 2015 Gleason Grade Groups in a Nationwide Population-based Cohort | Q37008997 | ||
| Assessing the Clinical Impact of Risk Prediction Models With Decision Curves: Guidance for Correct Interpretation and Appropriate Use. | Q37130232 | ||
| Do prostate cancer risk models improve the predictive accuracy of PSA screening? A meta-analysis | Q38268839 | ||
| A multi-institutional prospective trial in the USA confirms that the 4Kscore accurately identifies men with high-grade prostate cancer | Q38278153 | ||
| EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent | Q38939206 | ||
| Improving the Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator for Initial Prostate Biopsy by Incorporating the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Gleason Grading and Cribriform growth | Q38978364 | ||
| The US Preventive Services Task Force 2017 Draft Recommendation Statement on Screening for Prostate Cancer: An Invitation to Review and Comment | Q39233902 | ||
| Prostate cancer outcomes of men with biopsy Gleason score 6 and 7 without cribriform or intraductal carcinoma | Q39492431 | ||
| Estimating the harms and benefits of prostate cancer screening as used in common practice versus recommended good practice: A microsimulation screening analysis. | Q39559217 | ||
| Multicenter evaluation of an artificial neural network to increase the prostate cancer detection rate and reduce unnecessary biopsies. | Q39609234 | ||
| Algorithms based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA), free PSA, digital rectal examination and prostate volume reduce false-positive PSA results in prostate cancer screening | Q39687440 | ||
| Development and validation of a nomogram predicting the outcome of prostate biopsy based on patient age, digital rectal examination and serum prostate specific antigen | Q39716047 | ||
| Assessing individual risk for prostate cancer | Q39809092 | ||
| A risk-based strategy improves prostate-specific antigen-driven detection of prostate cancer. | Q39899527 | ||
| Prostate cancer detection in the "grey area" of prostate-specific antigen below 10 ng/ml: head-to-head comparison of the updated PCPT calculator and Chun's nomogram, two risk estimators incorporating prostate cancer antigen 3. | Q39954842 | ||
| Risk-based Patient Selection for Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsy after Negative Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Random Biopsy Avoids Unnecessary Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scans. | Q40227639 | ||
| Comparison of Two Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators that Include the Prostate Health Index. | Q40487837 | ||
| Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging | Q69737582 | ||
| Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology | Q82385524 | ||
| P433 | issue | 1 | |
| P304 | page(s) | 18-26 | |
| P577 | publication date | 2018-02-01 | |
| P1433 | published in | Translational andrology and urology | Q27724139 |
| P1476 | title | Head-to-head comparison of prostate cancer risk calculators predicting biopsy outcome | |
| P478 | volume | 7 |
| Q89686231 | A predictive model for prostate cancer incorporating PSA molecular forms and age |
| Q92535853 | Personalizing prostate cancer diagnosis with multivariate risk prediction tools: how should prostate MRI be incorporated? |
| Q64085522 | Prediction Medicine: Biomarkers, Risk Calculators and Magnetic Resonance Imaging as Risk Stratification Tools in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis |
| Q90353952 | Reducing unnecessary biopsies while detecting clinically significant prostate cancer including cribriform growth with the ERSPC Rotterdam risk calculator and 4Kscore |
Search more.