Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33002371›Full record

SynthesisThe British journal of radiology2021

Impact of PI-RADS Category 3 lesions on the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for detecting prostate cancer and the prevalence of prostate cancer within each PI-RADS category: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Akshay Wadera, Mostafa Alabousi, Alex Pozdnyakov, Mohammed Kashif Al-Ghita, Ali Jafri, Matthew Df McInnes, Nicola Schieda, Christian B van der Pol, Jean-Paul Salameh, Lucy Samoilov and 2 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The British journal of radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. European journal of hybrid imaging · 2022
    Article
  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

12 authors.

Akshay WaderaDepartment of Radiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Mostafa AlabousiDepartment of Radiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4023-0559
Alex PozdnyakovFaculty of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Mohammed Kashif Al-GhitaFaculty of Biomedical Sciences, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Ali JafriDepartment of Medicine, New York Institute of Technology School of Osteopathic Medicine, Glen Head, NY, United States.
Matthew Df McInnesThe Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Nicola SchiedaDepartment of Radiology, University of Ottawa, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Christian B van der PolDepartment of Radiology, McMaster University, Juravinski Hospital, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Jean-Paul SalamehDepartment of Medicine, Clinical Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Lucy SamoilovDepartment of Radiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Kaela Gusenbauer
Abdullah AlabousiDepartment of Radiology, McMaster University, St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) category 3 lesions' impact on the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of MRI for prostate cancer (PC) and to derive the prevalence of PC within each PI-RADS category.

methodsMEDLINE and Embase were searched until April 10, 2020 for studies reporting on the DTA of MRI by PI-RADS category. Accuracy metrics were calculated using a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis with PI-RADS three lesions treated as a positive test, negative test, and excluded from the analysis. Differences in DTA were assessed utilizing meta-regression. PC prevalence within each PI-RADS category was estimated with a proportional meta-analysis.

resultsIn total, 26 studies reporting on 12,913 patients (4,853 with PC) were included. Sensitivities for PC in the positive, negative, and excluded test groups were 96% (95% confidence interval [CI] 92-98), 82% (CI 75-87), and 95% (CI 91-97), respectively. Specificities for the positive, negative, and excluded test groups were 33% (CI 23-44), 71% (CI 62-79), and 52% (CI 37-66), respectively. Meta-regression demonstrated higher sensitivity (

conclusionPI-RADS category 3 lesions can significantly impact the DTA of MRI for PC detection. A low prevalence of clinically significant PC is noted in PI-RADS category 1 and 2 cases. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Inclusion or exclusion of PI-RADS category 3 lesions impacts the DTA of MRI for PC detection.

Indexed as

HumansImage-Guided BiopsyMagnetic Resonance ImagingMalePrevalenceProstateProstatic NeoplasmsRadiology Information SystemsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID33002371
PMCPMC7934301

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.