ArticleDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)2019
Assessment of the compliance with minimum acceptable technical parameters proposed by PI-RADS v2 guidelines in multiparametric prostate MRI acquisition in tertiary referral hospitals in the Republic of Turkey.
Article in Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing Quality and Adherence to PI-RADSv2.1 Minimum Technical Standards of Prostate MRI in NRG-GU005.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026Trial
- Impact of central review and MRI image quality on prostate cancer diagnosis and biopsy decision-making in referred patients.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Quality of prostate MRI in early diagnosis-a national survey and reading evaluation.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- External Validation of a Previously Developed Deep Learning-based Prostate Lesion Detection Algorithm on Paired External and In-House Biparametric MRI Scans.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2024Article
- Application of a validated prostate MRI deep learning system to independent same-vendor multi-institutional data: demonstration of transferability.European radiology · 2023Article
- Deep learning-based artificial intelligence applications in prostate MRI: brief summary.The British journal of radiology · 2022Review
- Prostate MRI quality: a critical review of the last 5 years and the role of the PI-QUAL score.The British journal of radiology · 2022Review
- ESUR/ESUI position paper: developing artificial intelligence for precision diagnosis of prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging.European radiology · 2021Article
- Imaging quality and prostate MR: it is time to improve.The British journal of radiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAlthough the clinical use of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is increasing, the adherence to parameters for mpMRI, which had been described in the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) for an optimum image acquisition is unknown. In this paper, we aimed to determine the compliance with the minimum acceptable technical parameters for prostate mpMRI defined by PI-RADS v2 in tertiary care centers in Turkey.
methodsWe sent a survey to all radiology departments of tertiary referral hospitals in Turkey (n=120) to evaluate their adherence to PI-RADS v2 technical specifications. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square, Fisher exact, ANOVA, and the Student t tests. The cutoff values for image acquisition times were also determined with receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. P values <0.05 were considered statistically significant.
resultsOne hundred and eleven clinics responded to our survey (response rate, 92.5%). Prostate MRI was reported to be performed in 61 centers, of which 26 (42.6%) used 3 T (Tesla) scanner while 35 (57.4%) used 1.5 T. The adherence to slice thickness, in-plane phase and frequency resolutions on T2-weighted imaging were 68.9%, 41%, and 9.8%, respectively. The adherence to the same parameters on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) were higher compared with T2-weighted imaging (85.2%, 62.3%, and 78.7%, respectively). In comparative analysis, the adherence to slice thickness, field of view (FOV) and in-plane phase resolution on T2-weighted imaging were higher for 3 T compared with 1.5 T scanners (P = 0.004, P = 0.041, and P = 0.001, respectively). T2-weighted imaging acquisition time was significantly longer for the centers that adhered to FOV (P = 0.034) and in-plane T2-weighted imaging phase resolution (P = 0.028). The DWI scan time was significantly longer when they adhered to DWI-FOV (P = 0.014) and b value ≥1400 s/mm2 (P = 0.008). The calculated cutoff of scan times were 220 s in T2-weighted imaging and 312 s in DWI to ensure the compliance with voxel sizes and b value criteria.
conclusionThe tertiary referral centers in Turkey did not meet majority of the technical specifications of PI-RADS v2 during prostate MRI acquisition. Awareness to the minimum acceptable technical parameters of mpMRI should be increased to potentially improve the quality of prostate cancer imaging.
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.