ArticlePolish journal of radiology2022
Diagnostic value of 3.0 T versus 1.5 T MRI in staging prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Polish journal of radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- 5 T versus 3 T MRI for prostate cancer: an intra-individual prospective comparison of image quality and diagnostic performance.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026Article
- Impact of Magnetic Field Strength (1.5 T vs. 3.0 T) on the Prognostic Value of Quantitative ADC Indices in Patients After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Prospective Multicenter Observational Study in Korea (The KORHN-PRO Registry).Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative Analysis of CT and MRI Combined with RNA Sequencing for Radiogenomic Staging of Bladder Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Article
- Textural Features of MR Images Correlate with an Increased Risk of Clinically Significant Cancer in Patients with High PSA Levels.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the diagnostic performance of 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI in the staging of prostate cancer. Material and methods: English-language studies on the diagnostic accuracy of 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI in prostate cancer staging published through May 2020 were searched for in relevant databases. The focus was on studies in which both 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI were performed in the study population, to reduce interstudy heterogeneity. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were determined for 3.0 T and for 1.5 T along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Out of 8 studies identified, 4 met the inclusion criteria. 3.0 T ( Conclusions: 3.0 T has slightly better diagnostic performance than 1.5 T MRI in prostate cancer staging (3 vs. 2), although without statistical significance. Our findings suggest the need for larger, randomized trials directly comparing 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI in prostate cancer.
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.