Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28698942›Full record

ReviewEuropean radiology2018

MRI of the scrotum: Recommendations of the ESUR Scrotal and Penile Imaging Working Group.

Athina C Tsili, Michele Bertolotto, Ahmet Tuncay Turgut, Vikram Dogra, Simon Freeman, Laurence Rocher, Jane Belfield, Michal Studniarek, Alexandra Ntorkou, Lorenzo E Derchi and 4 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

14 authors.

Athina C TsiliDepartment of Clinical Radiology, Medical School, University of Ioannina, University Campus, 45110, Ioannina, Greece. a_tsili@yahoo.gr.
Michele BertolottoUco di Radiologia Dell 'Universita' di Trieste, Strada di Fiume 447, Trieste, Italy.
Ahmet Tuncay TurgutDepartment of Radiology, Ankara Training and Research Hospital, 06590, Ankara, Turkey.
Vikram DograDepartment of Imaging Sciences, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, 601 Elmwood Ave, Box 648, Rochester, NY, USA.
Simon FreemanPlymouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Plymouth, UK.
Laurence RocherAPHP, site Bicêtre, Ecole doctorale Biosigne, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris Sud, ED 419, 78 Avenue du General Leclerc, 94270, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France.
Jane BelfieldRoyal Liverpool University Hospital, Prescot Street, Liverpool, L7 8XP, UK.
Michal StudniarekMedical University of Gdansk, ul Debinki 7, Gdansk, Poland.
Alexandra NtorkouDepartment of Clinical Radiology, Medical School, University of Ioannina, University Campus, 45110, Ioannina, Greece.
Lorenzo E DerchiUniversita di Genova, Largo R. Benzi, 8, Genova, Italy.
Raymond OyenRadiology, UZ Herestraat 49, box 7003 54 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Parvati RamchandaniPerelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Mustafa SecilDepartment of Radiology, Dokuz Eylul University Faculty of Medicine, Inciralti, Izmir, Turkey.
Jonathan RichenbergRoyal Sussex County Hospital Brighton and Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, Sussex, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe Scrotal and Penile Imaging Working Group (SPI-WG) appointed by the board of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) has produced recommendations for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the scrotum.

methodsThe SPI-WG searched for original and review articles published before September 2016 using the Pubmed and Medline databases. Keywords used were 'magnetic resonance imaging', 'testis or testicle or testicular', 'scrotum', 'intratesticular', 'paratesticular', 'extratesticular' 'diffusion-weighted', 'dynamic MRI'. Consensus was obtained among the members of the subcommittee. The expert panel proposed recommendations using Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2011 Levels of Evidence.

resultsThe recommended MRI protocol should include T1-, T2-weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Scrotal MRI can be clinically applied for lesion characterisation (primary), including both intratesticular and paratesticular masses, differentiation between germ-cell and non-germ-cell neoplasms (evolving), characterisation of the histological type of testicular germ cell neoplasms (TGCNs, in selected cases), local staging of TGCNs (primary), acute scrotum (in selected cases), trauma (in selected cases) and undescended testes (primary).

conclusionsThe ESUR SPI-WG produced this consensus paper in which the existing literature on MRI of the scrotum is reviewed. The recommendations for the optimal imaging technique and clinical indications are presented. KEY POINTS: • This report presents recommendations for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the scrotum. • Imaging acquisition protocols and clinical indications are provided. • MRI is becoming established as a worthwhile second-line diagnostic tool for scrotal pathology.

Indexed as

ConsensusSocieties, MedicalUrologyEuropeHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMalePenisScrotumEvidence-based medicine/standardsMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI)ProtocolsScrotumTestis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.