Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38787428›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2024

PI-QUAL version 2: an update of a standardised scoring system for the assessment of image quality of prostate MRI.

Maarten de Rooij, Clare Allen, Jasper J Twilt, Linda C P Thijssen, Patrick Asbach, Tristan Barrett, Giorgio Brembilla, Mark Emberton, Rajan T Gupta, Masoom A Haider and 18 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

86 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Combined ADC and TMagnetic resonance in medicine · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Optimal Selection of the Effective Echo Time (TEJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

28 authors.

Maarten de RooijDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Clare AllenDepartment of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Jasper J TwiltDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Linda C P ThijssenDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Patrick AsbachDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Tristan BarrettDepartment of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Giorgio BrembillaDepartment of Radiology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Mark EmbertonDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
Rajan T GuptaDepartment of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Masoom A HaiderJoint Department of Medical Imaging, Sinai Health System, Lunenfeld Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Veeru KasivisvanathanDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
Vibeke LøgagerDepartment of Radiology, Herlev Gentofte University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark.
Caroline M MooreDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
Anwar R PadhaniPaul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Hospital, Northwood, Middlesex, UK.
Valeria PanebiancoDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, Sapienza University/Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy.
Philippe PuechDepartment of Radiology, CHU Lille, University Lille, Lille, France.
Andrei S PuryskoAbdominal Imaging Section and Nuclear Radiology Department, Diagnostic Institute, and Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Raphaële Renard-PennaAP-HP, Radiology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
Jonathan RichenbergDepartment of Imaging, Sussex universities Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Brighton, UK.
Georg SalomonMartini Clinic (Prostate Cancer Centre), University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Francesco SanguedolceDepartment of Medicine, Surgery and Pharmacy, Università degli Studi di Sassari, Sassari, Italy.
Ivo G SchootsDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Harriet C ThönyDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Fribourg Cantonal Hospital, Fribourg, Switzerland.
Baris TurkbeyMolecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Geert VilleirsDepartment of Medical Imaging, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Jochen WalzDepartment of Urology, Institut Paoli-Calmettes Cancer Centre, Marseille, France.
Jelle BarentszAndros Clinics, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Francesco GigantiDepartment of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. f.giganti@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5218-6431

Funding

Imaging, image guided biopsy and treatment of prostate cancerZIABC012062 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI TÜRKBEY, BARIS · 2021 to 2025
$1.3M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multiparametric MRI is the optimal primary investigation when prostate cancer is suspected, and its ability to rule in and rule out clinically significant disease relies on high-quality anatomical and functional images. Avenues for achieving consistent high-quality acquisitions include meticulous patient preparation, scanner setup, optimised pulse sequences, personnel training, and artificial intelligence systems. The impact of these interventions on the final images needs to be quantified. The prostate imaging quality (PI-QUAL) scoring system was the first standardised quantification method that demonstrated the potential for clinical benefit by relating image quality to cancer detection ability by MRI. We present the updated version of PI-QUAL (PI-QUAL v2) which applies to prostate MRI performed with or without intravenous contrast medium using a simplified 3-point scale focused on critical technical and qualitative image parameters. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: High image quality is crucial for prostate MRI, and the updated version of the PI-QUAL score (PI-QUAL v2) aims to address the limitations of version 1. It is now applicable to both multiparametric MRI and MRI without intravenous contrast medium. KEY POINTS: High-quality images are essential for prostate cancer diagnosis and management using MRI. PI-QUAL v2 simplifies image assessment and expands its applicability to prostate MRI without contrast medium. PI-QUAL v2 focuses on critical technical and qualitative image parameters and emphasises T2-WI and DWI.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaMultiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsHumansMaleContrast MediaMagnetic resonance imagingProstatic neoplasmsQuality control

Identifiers

PMID38787428
PMCPMC11519155

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.