ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2021
Multiparametric prostate MRI quality assessment using a semi-automated PI-QUAL software program.
Article in European radiology experimental, 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, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prostate MRI quality improvement: a Roadmap from the ESUR Prostate MRI Working Group.European radiology · 2026Review
- Integrating Artificial Intelligence into Prostate MR Imaging: Technical Foundations, Clinical Applications, and Workflow Implications.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2026Review
- AI in Prostate MRI: A Task-Based Review.Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2025Review
- Predicting ADC map quality from T2-weighted MRI: A deep learning approach for early quality assessment to assist point-of-care.European journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Toward a Refined PI-RADS: The Feasibility and Limitations of More Informative Metrics in Reviewing MRI Scans.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2025Review
- PI-QUAL version 2 image quality categorisation and inter-reader agreement compared to version 1.European radiology · 2025Article
- 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: It is time to take stock.European journal of radiology · 2023Review
- Is Artificial Intelligence Replacing Our Radiology Stars in Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging? The Stars Do Not Look Big, But They Can Look Brighter.European urology open science · 2023Article
- Tasks for artificial intelligence in prostate MRI.European radiology experimental · 2022Review
- Review
- Quality in MR reporting of the prostate – improving acquisition, the role of AI and future perspectivesThe British journal of radiology · 2022Review
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The technical requirements for the acquisition of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate have been clearly outlined in the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) guidelines, but there is still huge variability in image quality among centres across the world. It has been difficult to quantify what constitutes a good-quality image, and a first attempt to address this matter has been the publication of the Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score and its dedicated scoring sheet. This score includes the assessment of technical parameters that can be obtained from the DICOM files along with a visual evaluation of certain features on prostate MRI (e.g., anatomical structures). We retrospectively analysed the image quality of 10 scans from different vendors and magnets using a semiautomated dedicated PI-QUAL software program and compared the time needed for assessing image quality using two methods (semiautomated assessment versus manual filling of the scoring sheet). This semiautomated software is able to assess the technical parameters automatically, but the visual assessment is still performed by the radiologist. There was a significant reduction in the reporting time of prostate mpMRI quality according to PI-QUAL using the dedicated software program compared to manual filling (5'54″ versus 7'59″; p = 0.005). A semiautomated PI-QUAL software program allows the radiologist to assess the technical details related to the image quality of prostate mpMRI in a quick and reliable manner, allowing clinicians to have more confidence that the quality of mpMRI of the prostate is sufficient to determine patient care.
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.