ArticleWorld journal of urology2020
Novices in MRI-targeted prostate biopsy benefit from structured reporting of MRI findings.
Article in World journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The importance and future of prostate MRI report templates: improving oncological care.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Review
- Quality in MR reporting of the prostate – improving acquisition, the role of AI and future perspectivesThe British journal of radiology · 2022Review
- [Current developments on digitalization : Analysis of quality and economics in healthcare].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2021Review
- Evidence-based medicine in urology.World journal of urology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to investigate whether structured reports (SRs) of prostate MRI results are more suitable than non-structured reports (NSRs) for promoting the more accurate assessment of the location of a single prostate cancer lesion by novices in MRI-targeted biopsy.
methods50 NSRs and 50 SRs describing a single prostatic lesion were presented to 5 novices in MRI-targeted biopsy. The participants were asked to plot the tumor location in a two-dimensional prostate diagram and to answer a questionnaire on the quality of the reports. The accuracy of the plotted tumor position was evaluated with a validated 30-point scoring system that distinguished between "major" and "minor" mistakes.
resultsThe overall mean score for the accuracy of the tumor plotting was significantly higher for SRs than for NSRs (26.4 vs. 20.7, p < 0.01). The mean numbers of major (1.4 vs. 0.48, p < 0.01) and minor (3.05 vs. 1.15, p < 0.01) mistakes were significantly higher for NSRs than for SRs. Compared with NSRs, SRs received significantly higher ratings for the perceived quality of the summary (4.0 vs. 2.4, p < 0.01) as well as for the overall satisfaction with the report (4.1 vs. 2.1, p < 0.01).
conclusionNovices in MRI-targeted biopsy prefer structured reporting of prostate MRI as an information tool. SRs allow for a more accurate assessment of the location of single prostate cancer lesions. Therefore, structured reporting of prostate MRI may help to foster the learning process of novices in MRI-targeted biopsy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.