ArticleKorean journal of radiology2021
Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System: Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance between Version 2.0 and 2.1 for Prostatic Peripheral Zone.
Article in Korean journal of radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Refining biopsy strategies stratified by PI-RADS score in men: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Nature communications · 2026Pooled it
- Inter-reader agreement of the prostate imaging reporting and data system version v2.1 for detection of prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Interobserver Agreement and Accuracy in Interpreting mpMRI of the Prostate: a Systematic Review.Current urology reports · 2022Pooled it
- PI-RADS v2.1 for prostate MRI: current applications, ongoing debates, and synergies with advanced technologies-a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Review
- Zero-Shot PI-RADS Version 2.1 Scoring with ChatGPT-4 Turbo and Llama 3: Diagnostic Performance and Agreement with Abdominal Radiologists.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2026Article
- Reevaluating prostate imaging-reporting and data system 3 lesions upgraded to 4: the emergence of a new subgroup?The British journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Combination of PI-RADS version 2.1 and amide proton transfer values for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- PI-RADSv2.1 combined with PSA density for optimizing prostate biopsy decisions: a retrospective analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- A pictorial essay of PI-RADS pearls and pitfalls: toward less ambiguity and better practice.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Review
- Prospective Evaluation of PI-RADS Version 2.1 for Prostate Cancer Detection and Investigation of Multiparametric MRI-derived Markers.Radiology · 2023Article
- Use of "Diagnostic Yield" in Imaging Research Reports: Results from Articles Published in Two General Radiology Journals.Korean journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Paradigm Shift in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Pre-Biopsy Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Targeted Biopsy.Korean journal of radiology · 2022Review
- PI-RADS v2.1 Combined With Prostate-Specific Antigen Density for Detection of Prostate Cancer in Peripheral Zone.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the diagnostic performance between Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2.0 (PI-RADSv2.0) and version 2.1 (PI-RADSv2.1) for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in the peripheral zone (PZ). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included 317 patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy for PZ lesions. Definition of csPCa was International Society of Urologic Pathology grade ≥ 2 cancer. Area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy for csPCa were analyzed by two readers. The cancer detection rate (CDR) for csPCa was investigated according to the PI-RADS categories.
resultsAUC of PI-RADSv2.1 (0.856 and 0.858 for reader 1 and 2 respectively) was higher than that of PI-RADSv2.0 (0.795 and 0.747 for reader 1 and 2 respectively) (both
conclusionOur data demonstrated improved AUC, specificity, PPV, accuracy, and CDRs of category 3 or 4 of PI-RADSv2.1, but decreased sensitivity, compared with PI-RADSv2.0, for csPCa in PZ.
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.