ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Intraobserver and Interobserver Agreement between Six Radiologists Describing mpMRI Features of Prostate Cancer Using a PI-RADS 2.1 Structured Reporting Scheme.
Article in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- PI-RADS v2.1 for prostate MRI: current applications, ongoing debates, and synergies with advanced technologies-a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Review
- Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1 as a predictor of clinically significant and aggressive prostate cancer: a radical prostatectomy-validated study.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
- Improving Early Prostate Cancer Detection Through Artificial Intelligence: Evidence from a Systematic Review.Cancers · 2025Review
- An Innovative Approach with [Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The value of MRI-based radiomics and clinicoradiological data for the detection of forkhead box protein A1 gene mutated prostate cancer.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
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
Clinical practice has revealed ambiguities in PI-RADS v2.1 scoring, but a limited number of studies are available that validate the interreader and intrareader reproducibility of the mpMRI PI-RADS lexicon. We decomposed the PI-RADS rules into a set of common data elements to evaluate the inter- and intraobserver agreement in assessing the individual features included in the PI-RADS lexicon. Six radiologists (three highly experienced, three less experienced) in two sessions independently read thirty-two lesions in the peripheral and transition zone using the structured reporting tool, blinded to clinical MRI indication. The highest agreement between radiologists was observed for the abnormality detection, the evaluation of the type of signal intensity, and the characteristic of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Moderate agreement was reported for dynamic contrast-enhanced images. This resulted in a decrease in abnormality detection (PA = 76.5%) and enhancement indication (PA = 77.3%). The lowest agreement was observed for highly subjective features: shape, signal intensity level, and type of lesion margins. The results indicate the limitations of the PI-RADS v2.1 lexicon in relation to interreader and intrareader reproducibility. We have demonstrated that it is possible to develop structured reporting systems standardized according to the PI-RADS lexicon.
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.