SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2022
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.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multicentre evaluation of artificial intelligence risk classification for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer on biparametric MRI.European radiology · 2026Article
- An Assessment of PI-RADS v2.1: Inter-Reader Agreement, Diagnostic Accuracy, and the Added Value of PSA Density in Prostate Cancer Prediction.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- PI-RADS v2.1 for prostate MRI: current applications, ongoing debates, and synergies with advanced technologies-a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Review
- Modern integrative prostate cancer diagnostics.Current opinion in urology · 2026Review
- 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
- Evaluation of large language models in assigning PI-RADS v2.1 categories for prostate MRI reports.BMC urology · 2026Article
- A prospective comparison of the diagnostic performance of a high b-value diffusion-weighted image-guided score versus PI-RADS v2.1 for transition zone prostate cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of large language models for PI-RADS score extraction from free-text prostate MRI reports: a comparative study with human readers.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Diffusion weighted image-guided transitional zone scoring in the detection of transitional zone prostate cancer: comparison with current PI-RADS v2.1 scoring.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Article
- Deep learning image reconstruction of diffusion-weighted imaging in evaluation of prostate cancer focusing on its clinical implications.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Evaluating Diagnostic Accuracy and Inter-reader Agreement of the Prostate Imaging After Focal Ablation Scoring System.European urology open science · 2024Article
- The role of gadolinium-based contrast agents in magnetic resonance imaging structured reporting and data systems (RADS).Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2024Review
- Application of Advanced Imaging to Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Management: A Narrative Review of Current Practice and Unanswered Questions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Biparametric MRI-based radiomics classifiers for the detection of prostate cancer in patients with PSA serum levels of 4∼10 ng/mL.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: We aimed to systematically assess the inter-reader agreement of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version (PI-RADS) v2.1 for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: We included studies reporting inter-reader agreement of different radiologists that applied PI-RADS v2.1 for the detection of PCa. Quality assessment of the included studies was performed with the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies. The summary estimates of the inter-reader agreement were pooled with the random-effect model and categorized (from slight to almost perfect) according to the kappa ( Results: A total of 12 studies comprising 2475 patients were included. The pooled inter-reader agreement for whole gland was Conclusions: PI-RADS v2.1 demonstrated substantial inter-reader agreement among radiologists for whole gland and TZ lesions. However, the difference in agreement between PI-RADS v2.0 and v2.1 was not significant for the whole gland or the TZ.
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.