Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32696213›Full record

ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2020

Quality Comparison of 3 Tesla multiparametric MRI of the prostate using a flexible surface receiver coil versus conventional surface coil plus endorectal coil setup.

T Ullrich, M D Kohli, M A Ohliger, K Magudia, S S Arora, T Barrett, L K Bittencourt, D J Margolis, L Schimmöller, B Turkbey and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Prostate MRI using a rigid two-channel phased-array endorectal coil: comparison with phased array coil acquisition at 3 T.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2022
    Article
  8. Review
  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

11 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

T UllrichDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. tim.ullrich@med.uni-duesseldorf.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9866-8898
M D KohliDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
M A OhligerDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
K MagudiaDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
S S AroraDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
T BarrettDepartment of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
L K BittencourtDASA Company, São Paulo, Brazil.
D J MargolisDepartment of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
L SchimmöllerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, 40225, Dusseldorf, Germany.
B TurkbeyMolecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
A C WestphalenDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
University of California, San Francisco · USCornell University · USHeinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DENational Institutes of Health · USUniversidade Federal Fluminense · BRUniversity of Cambridge · GBVanderbilt University Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo subjectively and quantitatively compare the quality of 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate acquired with a novel flexible surface coil (FSC) and with a conventional endorectal coil (ERC).

methodsSix radiologists independently reviewed 200 pairs of axial, high-resolution T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted image data sets, each containing one examination acquired with the FSC and one with the ERC, respectively. Readers selected their preferred examination from each pair and assessed every single examination using six quality criteria on 4-point scales. Signal-to-noise ratios were measured and compared.

resultsTwo readers preferred FSC acquisition (36.5-45%) over ERC acquisition (13.5-15%) for both sequences combined, and four readers preferred ERC acquisition (41-46%). Analysis of pooled responses for both sequences from all readers shows no significant preference for FSC or ERC. Analysis of the individual sequences revealed a pooled preference for the FSC in T2WI (38.7% vs 17.8%) and for the ERC in DWI (50.9% vs 19.6%). Patients' weight was the only weak predictor of a preference for the ERC acquisition (p = 0.04). SNR and CNR were significantly higher in the ERC acquisitions (p<0.001) except CNR differentiating tumor lesions from benign prostate (p=0.1).

conclusionAlthough readers have strong individual preferences, comparable subjective image quality can be obtained for prostate MRI with an ERC and the novel FSC. ERC imaging might be particularly valuable for sequences with inherently lower SNR as DWI and larger patients whereas the FSC is generally preferred in T2WI. FSC imaging generates a lower SNR than with an ERC.

Indexed as

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleSignal-To-Noise RatioEarly diagnosisMRIProstate cancerQuality

Identifiers

PMID32696213
PMCPMC7716937
OpenAlexW3044536186

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.