ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2023
Readout-segmented diffusion weighted imaging of the testis at 3.0 T: comparison with single-shot echo-planar imaging.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of image quality between simultaneous multi-slice single-shot EPI and readout-segmented EPI in diffusion-weighted imaging of prostate cancer: a retrospective study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Readout-segmented echo-planar imaging and conventional single-shot echo-planar imaging for determining cervical cancer image quality, lymphovascular space invasion, and lymph node metastasis status: a comparative study.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe current study aimed to explore the feasibility of readout-segmented echo-planar imaging (RS-EPI) of the testis at 3.0 T, by comparing with single-shot echo-planar imaging (SS-EPI) in qualitative image quality and quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values.
methods66 patients undergoing scrotal MRI for various clinical indications were included retrospectively. RS-EPI image quality was rated from 1 (severe distortion or artifact, or nondiagnostic) to 4 (nearly no distortion or artifact, or outstanding). The comparative image quality (RS- vs. SS-EPI) was rated from - 2 (SS-EPI severe or greater conspicuity) to 2 (RS-EPI severe or greater conspicuity). The confidence interval of proportions (CIOP) of comparative image quality and Wilcoxon rank sum test were performed to assess the preferences between RS-EPI and SS-EPI. Paired samples t-test and Bland-Altman analysis were performed to compare the mean ADC values of RS-EPI and SS-EPI. The mean, maximum, and minimum ADC values measured by RS-EPI were compared in normal testicular parenchyma, benign and malignant intratesticular lesions.
resultsThe evaluation of RS-EPI image quality showed RS-EPI with the characteristics of slight geometric distortion and susceptibility artifact, and good lesion conspicuity. The assessment of comparative image quality showed SS-EPI with obvious geometric distortion and susceptibility artifact, and RS-EPI preferred in lesion conspicuity. The CIOP ranged from 97 to 100% among three readers, with preferring to RS-EPI improving image quality (P < 0.001). There was a strong correlation and good agreement between mean ADC values measured by RS-EPI and SS-EPI. The mean, maximum and minimum ADC values by RS-EPI were significantly different in normal testicular parenchyma, benign and malignant intratesticular lesions.
conclusionRS-EPI DWI of the testis improved image quality in geometric distortion, susceptibility artifacts, and lesion conspicuity, and provided highly correlated and consistent mean ADC values when compared to SS-EPI DWI, indicating the feasibility of RS-EPI DWI of testes.
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.