Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33681427›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2021

Value of an online PI-RADS v2.1 score calculator for assessment of prostate MRI.

Borna K Barth, Katharina Martini, Stephan M Skawran, Florian A Schmid, Niels J Rupp, Laura Zuber, Olivio F Donati

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of radiology open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Borna K BarthInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland.
Katharina MartiniInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland.
Stephan M SkawranInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland.
Florian A SchmidDepartment for Urology, University Hospital Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland.
Niels J RuppDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Pathology, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland.
Laura ZuberUniversity of Zurich, Raemistrasse 78, 8006 Zurich, Switzerland.
Olivio F DonatiInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the value of a browser-based PI-RADS Score Calculator (PCalc) compared to MRI reporting using the official PI-RADS v2.1 document (PDoc) for non-specialized radiologists in terms of reporting efficiency, interrater agreement and diagnostic accuracy for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa).

methodsBetween 09/2013 and 04/2015, 100 patients (median age, 64.8; range 47.5-78.2) who underwent prostate-MRI at a 3 T scanner and who received transperineal prostate mapping biopsy within <6 months were included in this retrospective study. Two non-specialized radiology residents (R1, R2) attributed a PI-RADS version 2.1 score for the most suspect (i. e. index) lesion (i) using the original PI-RADS v2.1 document only and after a 6-week interval (ii) using a browser-based PCalc. Reading time was measured. Reading time differences were assessed using Wilcoxon signed rank test. Intraclass-correlation Coefficient (ICC) was used to assess interrater agreement (IRA). Parameters of diagnostic accuracy and ROC curves were used for assessment of lesion-based diagnostic accuracy.

resultsCumulative reading time was 32:55 (mm:ss) faster when using the PCalc, the difference being statistically significant for both readers (p < 0.05). The difference in IRA between the image sets (ICC 0.55 [0.40, 0.68]) and 0.75 [0.65, 0.82] for the image set with PDoc and PCalc, respectively) was not statistically significant. There was no statistically significant difference in lesion-based diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.83 [0.74, 0.92] and 0.82 [95 %CI: 0.74, 0.91]) for images assessed with PDoc as compared to PCalc (AUC 0.82 [0.74, 0.91] and 0.74 [95 %CI: 0.64, 0.83]) for R1 and R2, respectively.

conclusionNon-specialized radiologists may increase reading speed in prostate MRI with the help of a browser-based PI-RADS Score Calculator compared to reporting using the official PI-RADS v2.1 document without impairing interreader agreement or lesion-based diagnostic accuracy for detection of clinically significant PCa.

Indexed as

PI-RADS 2.1Prostate cancerProstate MRIReporting software

Identifiers

PMID33681427
PMCPMC7930347

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.