Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32211948›Full record

ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2020

Impact of bowel preparation with Fleet's™ enema on prostate MRI quality.

Mehmet Coskun, Sherif Mehralivand, Joanna H Shih, Maria J Merino, Bradford J Wood, Peter A Pinto, Tristan Barrett, Peter L Choyke, Baris Turkbey

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. The evolving PI-RADS paradigm.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. State-of-the-art Prostate Imaging.Sisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni · 2023
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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 at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Mehmet CoskunDepartment of Radiology, Health Science University Dr. Behçet Uz Child Disease and Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4339-898X
Sherif MehralivandUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1405-3683
Joanna H ShihBiometric Research Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, USA.
Maria J MerinoLaboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Bradford J WoodCenter for Interventional Oncology, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4297-0051
Peter A PintoUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0190-5931
Tristan BarrettDepartment of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1180-1474
Peter L ChoykeMolecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1086-8826
Baris TurkbeyMolecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. turkbeyi@mail.nih.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0853-6494
National Institutes of Health · USNational Institutes of Health Clinical Center · USSağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi · TRUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Prostate Cancer ImagingZIABC010655 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI CHOYKE, PETER L · 2009 to 2025
$49.2M
Center for Interventional OncologyZIDBC011242 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI WOOD, BRADFORD J · 2009 to 2025
$18.7M
Prostate SectionZIABC011081 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI PINTO, PETER · 2009 to 2025
$15.2M
Prostate Cancer ImagingZ01BC010655 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI CHOYKE, PETER L · 2005 to 2008
$2.1M
Interventional OncologyZIACL040015 · CLC · CLINICAL CENTER · PI WOOD, BRADFORD · 2009 to 2025
$0k
Intramural NIH HHS Z01 BC010655Intramural NIH HHS ZIA CL040015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo investigate the effects of cleansing Fleet's™ enema (FE) on rectal distention and image quality of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

methodsThis study included 117 prospectively accrued active surveillance patients who underwent prostate MRI both without (prep-) and with bowel preparation consisting of FE (prep+) obtained within 12 months of each other. The anterior-posterior (AP) diameter of the rectum, degree of perceived distention in the rectum and image quality scores were assessed by two independent readers for both (prep- and prep+) scans. DWI distortion was assessed quantitatively using the degree of anatomic mismatches between images obtained at different b values and the T2-weighted MRI. DWI artifact was qualitatively scored based on the presence of blurring, poor signal-to-noise, and artifact lines. The difference in rectal AP diameters between the two methods was tested by the paired Wilcoxon rank test. Stuart Maxell test was used in comparing rectal distention, DWI distortion, and artifact. Reader agreement was estimated by kappa statistics. p values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

resultsMean rectal AP diameter was significantly larger in prep- compared with prep+ scans (p = 0.002). Subjective scores demonstrated inter-reader variability. For instance, the rectal distention score was significantly lower in prep+ for reader 2 (p < 0.001) whereas it was not significant for reader 1 (p = 0.09). Reader 2 also found significant improvement in DWI distortion (p = 0.02) in prep+ scans. There was no significant difference between prep- and prep+ in DWI distortion and artifacts for reader 1 (p = 0.17 and p = 0.49, respectively), or DWI artifacts for reader 2 (p = 0.55). Kappa scores were moderate for rectal distension, but weak for DWI distortion, and artifacts.

conclusionBowel preparation with enema prior to prostate MRI may diminish rectal gas but has modest effects on DWI distortion and overall image quality. The value of bowel prep is not conclusively validated in this study.

Indexed as

ProstateProstatic NeoplasmsArtifactsDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingEcho-Planar ImagingEnemaHumansMaleArtifactBowel preparationEnemaMRI qualityProstate MRI

Identifiers

PMID32211948
PMCPMC8942291
OpenAlexW3013492542

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.