ArticleEuropean radiology2022
Inter-reader agreement of the PI-QUAL score for prostate MRI quality in the NeuroSAFE PROOF trial.
Article in European radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep learning-based automatic field of view planning for prostate MRI in oblique coronal and oblique axial planes.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Variation in Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Performance: Data from the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group.European urology oncology · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-generated apparent diffusion coefficient (AI-ADC) maps for prostate gland assessment: a multi-reader study.European radiology · 2026Article
- Pix2Pix generative-adversarial network in improving the quality of T2-weighted prostate magnetic resonance imaging: a multi-reader study.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025Article
- Multicenter analysis for inter reader agreement of PIQUAL score v2 for basic readers in prostate MRI.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- PI-QUAL version 2 image quality categorisation and inter-reader agreement compared to version 1.European radiology · 2025Article
- Risk factors for motion artifacts in fast spin-echo T2-weighted imaging of the prostate magnetic resonance imaging: a retrospective study.Radiological physics and technology · 2025Article
- A Narrative Review of Artificial Intelligence in MRI-Guided Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Addressing Key Challenges.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Micro-enema immediately prior to prostate MRI: effects on rectal gas, image quality and PI-QUAL score.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Article
- Early rectal neoplasm in dual-layer spectral detector computed tomography: dual-layer spectral computed tomography (CT) images improve tumor detection and staging.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Impact of prostate MRI image quality on diagnostic performance for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Article
- Emerging and anticipated innovations in prostate cancer MRI and their impact on patient care.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Review
- Deep learning-based image quality assessment: impact on detection accuracy of prostate cancer extraprostatic extension on MRI.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Article
- Multiparametric Prostate MRI Accuracy of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (v2.1) Scores 4 and 5: The Influence of Image Quality According to the Prostate Imaging Quality Score.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Deep Learning-Based T2-Weighted MR Image Quality Assessment and Its Impact on Prostate Cancer Detection Rates.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2024Article
- Taking PI-QUAL beyond the prostate: Towards a standardized radiological image quality score (RI-QUAL).European journal of radiology · 2023Article
- Prostate MRI and image quality: The radiologist's perspective.European journal of radiology · 2023Article
- Prostate MRI and image Quality: It is time to take stock.European journal of radiology · 2023Review
- Role of the Prostate Imaging Quality PI-QUAL Score for Prostate Magnetic Resonance Image Quality in Pathological Upstaging After Radical Prostatectomy: A Multicentre European Study.European urology open science · 2023Article
- Promoting the use of the PI-QUAL score for prostate MRI quality: results from the ESOR Nicholas Gourtsoyiannis teaching fellowship.European radiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score assesses the quality of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). A score of 1 means all sequences are below the minimum standard of diagnostic quality, 3 implies that the scan is of sufficient diagnostic quality, and 5 means that all three sequences are of optimal diagnostic quality. We investigated the inter-reader reproducibility of the PI-QUAL score in patients enrolled in the NeuroSAFE PROOF trial.
methodsWe analysed the scans of 103 patients on different MR systems and vendors from 12 different hospitals. Two dedicated radiologists highly experienced in prostate mpMRI independently assessed the PI-QUAL score for each scan. Interobserver agreement was assessed using Cohen's kappa with standard quadratic weighting (κw) and percent agreement.
resultsThe agreement for each single PI-QUAL score was strong (κw = 0.85 and percent agreement = 84%). A similar agreement (κw = 0.82 and percent agreement = 84%) was observed when the scans were clustered into three groups (PI-QUAL 1-2 vs PI-QUAL 3 vs PI-QUAL 4-5). The agreement in terms of diagnostic quality for each single sequence was highest for T2-weighted imaging (92/103 scans; 89%), followed by dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences (91/103; 88%) and diffusion-weighted imaging (80/103; 78%).
conclusionWe observed strong reproducibility in the assessment of PI-QUAL between two radiologists with high expertise in prostate mpMRI. At present, PI-QUAL offers clinicians the only available tool for evaluating and reporting the quality of prostate mpMRI in a systematic manner but further refinements of this scoring system are warranted. KEY POINTS: • Inter-reader agreement for each single Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score (i.e., PI-QUAL 1 to PI-QUAL 5) was strong, with weighted kappa = 0.85 (95% confidence intervals: 0.51 - 1) and percent agreement = 84%. • Interobserver agreement was strong when the scans were clustered into three groups according to the ability (or not) to rule in and to rule out clinically significant prostate cancer (i.e., PI-QUAL 1-2 vs PI-QUAL 3 vs PI-QUAL 4-5), with weighted kappa = 0.82 (95% confidence intervals: 0.68 - 0.96) and percent agreement = 84%. • T2-weighted acquisitions were the most compliant with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v. 2.0 technical recommendations and were the sequences of highest diagnostic quality for both readers in 95/103 (92%) scans, followed by dynamic contrast enhanced acquisition with 81/103 (79%) scans and lastly by diffusion-weighted imaging with 79/103 (77%) scans.
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.