ArticleEuropean urology open science2021
Accuracy of Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Reader Experience Matters.
Article in European urology open science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Randomized Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Transurethral Resection for Staging New Bladder Cancers: Results From the Prospective BladderPath Trial.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2025Trial
- Urologist and radiologist contributions to variation in prostate cancer detection at fusion biopsy.BJU international · 2026Article
- The Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Preoperative Evaluation of Anterior Obliterative Urethral Strictures.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Ultra-fast biparametric MRI in prostate cancer assessment: Diagnostic performance and image quality compared to conventional multiparametric MRI.European journal of radiology open · 2025Article
- Mapping of prostate cancer microvascular patterns using super-resolution ultrasound imaging.European radiology experimental · 2025Article
- Is prostatic adenocarcinoma detectable by urine cytology-A multicenter retrospective review.The Prostate · 2025Article
- Advanced Restriction Imaging and Reconstruction Technology for Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging (ART-Pro): A Study Protocol for a Multicenter, Multinational Trial Evaluating Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Advanced, Quantitative Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of Prostate Cancer.European urology open science · 2025Article
- The role of urology and radiology in prostate biopsy: current trends and future perspectives.World journal of urology · 2024Review
- Management Strategy for Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Category 3 Lesions.Current urology reports · 2023Review
- [Common errors, pitfalls, and management of complications of prostate biopsy : The most common diagnostic and procedural challenges of transrectal fusion prostate biopsy in the initial diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Review
- Review
- A Combined Radiomics and Machine Learning Approach to Distinguish Clinically Significant Prostate Lesions on a Publicly Available MRI Dataset.Journal of imaging · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundProstate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used in the detection, image-guided biopsy, and active surveillance of prostate cancer. The accuracy of prostate MRI may differ based on factors including imaging technique, patient population, and reader experience.
objectiveTo determine whether the accuracy of prostate MRI varies with reader experience. DESIGN SETTING AND
participantsWe rescored regions of interest from 194 consecutive patients who had undergone MRI/ultrasonography fusion biopsy. Original prostate MRI scans had been interpreted by one of 33 abdominal radiologists (AR group). More than 14 mo later, rescoring was performed by two blinded, prostate MRI radiologists (PR group). Likert scoring was used for both original MRI reports and rescoring. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Test performance (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV], and negative predictive value [NPV]) of prostate MRI was defined for the AR and PR groups. A Likert score of 4-5 was considered test positive and clinically significant prostate carcinoma (csPCa; Gleason grade group [GGG] ≥2) was considered outcome positive. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: MRI-positive lesions (Likert 4-5) scored by the PR group resulted in csPCa more frequently than those scored by the AR group (64.9% vs 39.3%). MRI-negative lesions (Likert 2-3) were more likely to result in a clinically insignificant biopsy (benign pathology or GGG 1) when scored by the PR versus the AR group (91.8% vs 76.6%). Sensitivity and specificity of MRI to detect csPCa were higher for the PR group than for the AR group (sensitivity 85.9% vs 70.7%; specificity 77.3% vs 46.8%). Overall diagnostic accuracy was higher for the PR group than for the AR group (80.1% vs 54.6%).
conclusionsSensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of prostate MRI were higher for the PR group than for the AR group. PATIENT SUMMARY: We examined the accuracy of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in two groups of radiologists. Experienced radiologists were more likely to detect clinically significant prostate cancer on MRI.
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.