3T MR-guided in-bore transperineal prostate biopsy: A comparison of robotic and manual needle-guidance templates.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate the utility of a robotic needle-guidance template device as compared to a manual template for in-bore 3T transperineal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This two-arm mixed retrospective-prospective study included 99 cases of targeted transperineal prostate biopsies. The biopsy needles were aimed at suspicious foci noted on multiparametric 3T MRI using manual template (historical control) as compared with a robotic template. The following data were obtained: the accuracy of average and closest needle placement to the focus, histologic yield, percentage of cancer volume in positive core samples, complication rate, and time to complete the procedure. RESULTS: In all, 56 cases were performed using the manual template and 43 cases were performed using the robotic template. The mean accuracy of the best needle placement attempt was higher in the robotic group (2.39 mm) than the manual group (3.71 mm, P < 0.027). The mean core procedure time was shorter in the robotic (90.82 min) than the manual group (100.63 min, P < 0.030). Percentage of cancer volume in positive core samples was higher in the robotic group (P < 0.001). Cancer yields and complication rates were not statistically different between the two subgroups (P = 0.557 and P = 0.172, respectively). CONCLUSION: The robotic needle-guidance template helps accurate placement of biopsy needles in MRI-guided core biopsy of prostate cancer.

Authorship Inflation in Medical Publications.

The number of authors per manuscript in peer-reviewed medical journals has increased substantially in the last several decades. Several reasons have been offered to explain this authorship growth, including increased researcher collaboration, honorary authorship driven by increased pressures for funding and promotion, the belief that including senior authors will facilitate publication, and the growing complexity of medical research. It is unknown, however, whether authorship has grown over time due to growing complexity of published academic articles, in which case growth could be warranted, or whether it has grown due to pressures of funding and academic promotion, which have created "authorship inflation." To answer this question, we analyzed data on authorship count, study type, and size of study population for the first 50 original articles published in each decade during 1960-2010 in 3 major medical journals. Within each type of study we considered (eg, randomized trials, observational studies, etc), average authorship rose more than 3-fold during this period. Similar growth persisted after adjustment for changes in study population sizes over time. Our findings suggest that increasing research complexity is an inadequate explanation for authorship growth. Instead, growth in authorship appears inflationary.