ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2023
Utility of dual read in the setting of prostate MRI interpretation.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- PI-RADS v2.1 for prostate MRI: current applications, ongoing debates, and synergies with advanced technologies-a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Review
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study is to assess the utility of dual reader interpretation of prostate MRI in the evaluation/detection of prostate cancer, using the PI-RADS v2.1 scoring system.
methodsWe performed a retrospective study to assess the utility of dual reader interpretation for prostate MRI. All MRI cases compiled for analysis were accompanied with prostate biopsy pathology reports that included Gleason scores to correlate to the MRI PI-RADS v2.1 score, tissue findings and location of pathology within the prostate gland. To assess for dual reader utility, two fellowship trained abdominal imagers (each with > 5 years of experience) provided independent and concurrent PI-RADS v2.1 scores on all included MRI examinations, which were then compared to the biopsy proven Gleason scores.
resultsAfter application of inclusion criteria, 131 cases were used for analysis. The mean age of the cohort was 63.6 years. Sensitivity, specificity and positive/negative predictive values were calculated for each reader and concurrent scores. Reader 1 demonstrated 71.43% sensitivity, 85.39% specificity, 69.77% PPV and 86.36% NPV. Reader 2 demonstrated 83.33% sensitivity, 78.65% specificity, 64.81% PPV and 90.91% NPV. Concurrent reads demonstrated 78.57% sensitivity, 80.9% specificity, 66% PPV and 88.89% NPV. There was no statistically significant difference between the individual readers or concurrent reads (p = 0.79).
conclusionOur results highlight that dual reader interpretation in prostate MRI is not needed to detect clinically relevant tumor and that radiologists with experience and training in prostate MRI interpretation establish acceptable sensitivity and specificity marks on PI-RADS v2.1 assessment.
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.