SynthesisThe British journal of radiology2022
Comparison of diagnostic performance and inter-reader agreement between PI-RADS v2.1 and PI-RADS v2: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The British journal of radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Node-RADS: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic performance, category-wise malignancy rates, and inter-observer reliability.European radiology · 2025Pooled 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
- Soft Tissue Reporting and Data System (Soft Tissue-RADS): preliminary validation among fellowship-trained musculoskeletal radiologists.European radiology · 2026Article
- Association of PI-RADS Score with Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer and Histopathological Upgrading in Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy: A Retrospective Single-Centre Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Development and internal validation of a noninvasive predictive model based on iron and fat measurements for pathologic risk stratification in prostate cancer.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
- Not always a perfect match: discrepancies between PSMA PET/CT and MRI in prostate cancer diagnosis and staging.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- PI-RADS v2.1 for prostate MRI: current applications, ongoing debates, and synergies with advanced technologies-a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Review
- Non-invasive diagnosis strategy integrating PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI for patients with suspected prostate cancer: a multi-center study.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Prostate MRI: Addressing Current Limitations Through Emerging Technologies.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026Review
- Diagnostic accuracy of abbreviated biparametric MRI for prostate cancer screening: a prospective feasibility study (ReIMAGINE study).European radiology · 2026Article
- Real-world Inter-rater Agreement of PI-QUAL Version 2 for Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Quality Assessment and Its Association with Diagnostic Accuracy.European urology open science · 2026Article
- Non-Invasive Detection of Prostate Cancer with Novel Time-Dependent Diffusion MRI and AI-Enhanced Quantitative Radiological Interpretation: PROS-TD-AI.Journal of imaging · 2026Article
- Developing an interpretable clinical-radiomics machine learning model using whole transition zone MRI analysis for improving diagnosis of transition zone prostate cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- The presence of prostate MRI-visible lesions at follow-up biopsy as a risk factor for histopathological upgrading during active surveillance.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of 3D ARFI imaging of prostate cancer: diagnostic reliability and concordance with MpMRI.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025Article
- Integration of magnetic resonance imaging and deep learning for prostate cancer detection: a systematic review.American journal of clinical and experimental urology · 2025Review
- Case-by-case combination of the prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1 with the Likert score to reduce the false-positives of prostate MRI: a proof-of-concept study.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Article
- Emerging and anticipated innovations in prostate cancer MRI and their impact on patient care.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Review
- A pictorial essay of PI-RADS pearls and pitfalls: toward less ambiguity and better practice.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Review
- Management of Patients With a Negative Multiparametric Prostate MRI Examination:AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing diagnostic performance and inter reader agreement between PI-RADS v. 2.1 and PI-RADS v. 2 in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).
methodsA systematic review was performed, searching the major biomedical databases (Medline, Embase, Scopus), using the keywords "PIRADS 2.1" or "PI RADS 2.1" or "PI-RADS 2.1". Studies reporting on head-to-head diagnostic comparison between PI-RADS v. 2.1 and v. 2 were included. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were compared between PI-RADS v. 2.1 and v. 2. Summary receiver operator characteristic graphs were plotted. Analysis was performed for whole gland, and pre-planned subgroup analysis was performed by tumour location (whole gland
resultsEight studies (1836 patients, 1921 lesions) were included. Pooled specificity for PI-RADS v. 2.1 was significantly lower than PI-RADS v. 2 for whole gland (0.62
conclusionsDiagnostic performance and inter-reader agreement for PI-RADS v. 2.1 is comparable to PI-RADS v. 2, however the significantly lower specificity of PI-RADS v. 2.1 may result in increased number of unnecessary biopsies. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: 1. Compared to PI-RADS v. 2, PI-RADS v. 2.1 has a non-significantly higher sensitivity but a significantly lower specificity for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.2. PI-RADS v. 2.1 could potentially result in considerable increase in number of negative targeted biopsy rates for PI-RADS 3 lesions, which could have been potentially avoided.
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.