Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26491891›Full record

ArticleAJR. American journal of roentgenology2016

High-Resolution 3-T Endorectal Prostate MRI: A Multireader Study of Radiologist Preference and Perceived Interpretive Quality of 2D and 3D T2-Weighted Fast Spin-Echo MR Images.

Antonio C Westphalen, Susan M Noworolski, Mukesh Harisinghani, Kartik S Jhaveri, Steve S Raman, Andrew B Rosenkrantz, Zhen J Wang, Ronald J Zagoria, John Kurhanewicz

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in AJR. American journal of roentgenology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. The Role of Tumor Oxygenation Tested by Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in Prostate Cancer Grading.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2019
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Antonio C Westphalen1 Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, M-372, Box 0628, San Francisco, CA 94143.
Susan M Noworolski1 Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, M-372, Box 0628, San Francisco, CA 94143.
Mukesh Harisinghani2 Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Kartik S Jhaveri3 Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Mount Sinai and Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Steve S Raman4 Department of Radiology, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.
Andrew B Rosenkrantz5 Department of Radiology, New York University, Langone Medical Center, New York, NY.
Zhen J Wang1 Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, M-372, Box 0628, San Francisco, CA 94143.
Ronald J Zagoria1 Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, M-372, Box 0628, San Francisco, CA 94143.
John Kurhanewicz1 Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, M-372, Box 0628, San Francisco, CA 94143.

Funding

Translation and Evaluation of a Multiparametric Prostate Cancer 3T ExamR01CA137207 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI HURD, RALPH EUGENE, KURHANEWICZ, JOHN · 2010 to 2014
$2.6M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA137207
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe goal of this study was to compare the perceived quality of 3-T axial T2-weighted high-resolution 2D and high-resolution 3D fast spin-echo (FSE) endorectal MR images of the prostate. MATERIALS AND

methodsSix radiologists independently reviewed paired 3-T axial T2-weighted high-resolution 2D and 3D FSE endorectal MR images of the prostates of 85 men in two sessions. In the first session (n = 85), each reader selected his or her preferred images; in the second session (n = 28), they determined their confidence in tumor identification and compared the depiction of the prostatic anatomy, tumor conspicuity, and subjective intrinsic image quality of images. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model, logistic regression, and the paired Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used for statistical analyses.

resultsThree readers preferred the 2D acquisition (67-89%), and the other three preferred the 3D images (70-80%). The option for one of the techniques was not associated with any of the predictor variables. The 2D FSE images were significantly sharper than 3D FSE (p < 0.001) and significantly more likely to exhibit other (nonmotion) artifacts (p = 0.002). No other statistically significant differences were found.

conclusionOur results suggest that there are strong individual preferences for the 2D or 3D FSE MR images, but there was a wide variability among radiologists. There were differences in image quality (image sharpness and presence of artifacts not related to motion) but not in the sequences' ability to delineate the glandular anatomy and depict a cancerous tumor.

Indexed as

ArtifactsHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedImaging, Three-DimensionalMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleProstatic NeoplasmsReproducibility of ResultsartifactMRIprostate cancerqualityT2-weighted MRI

Identifiers

PMID26491891
PMCPMC4721575

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.