Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39083068›Full record

SynthesisAbdominal radiology (New York)2025

Unveiling the diagnostic potential of diffusion kurtosis imaging and intravoxel incoherent motion for detecting and characterizing prostate cancer: a meta-analysis.

Pouria Rajabi, Bijan Rezakhaniha, Mohammad H Kazemi Galougahi, Mojgan Mohammadimehr, Hesam Sharifnia, Roshanak Pakzad, Hassan Niroomand

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Prognostic features of biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy based on diffusion kurtosis imaging.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Pouria RajabiSchool of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Bijan RezakhanihaDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, AJA University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID 0000-0001-7426-4875
Mohammad H Kazemi GalougahiDepartment of Social Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, AJA University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID 0000-0003-4601-6457
Mojgan MohammadimehrInfectious Diseases Research Center, Aja University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID 0000-0002-9210-0687
Hesam SharifniaDepartment of Health Management and Economics, School of Medicine, AJA University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Roshanak PakzadDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Hassan NiroomandTrauma Research Center, AJA University of Medical Sciences, Shahid Etemadzadeh Street, Fatemi Street West, Tehran, Iran. Hassanniroomand@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-3429-6842

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aims to assess the diagnostic capabilities of Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging (DKI) and Intravoxel Incoherent Motion (IVIM) in prostate cancer (PCa) detection and characterization. MATERIALS: A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for articles published up to September 10, 2023, that evaluated the diagnostic efficacy of MD, MK, Dt, f, and Dp parameters. Data were pooled using a bivariate mixed-effects regression model and analyzed with R software.

resultsIn total, 27 studies were included. The analysis revealed distinct diagnostic efficacies for DKI and IVIM. In the overall model, sensitivity and specificity were 0.807 and 0.797, respectively, with prospective studies showing higher specificity (0.858, p = 0.024). The detection model yielded increased sensitivity (0.845) and specificity (0.812), with DKI outperforming IVIM in both metrics (sensitivity: 0.87, p = 0.043; specificity: 0.837, p = 0.26); MD had high sensitivity (0.88) and specificity (0.82), while MK's specificity was significantly higher (0.854, p = 0.04); Dp's sensitivity was significantly lower (0.64, p = 0.016). In characterization, sensitivity and specificity were 0.708 and 0.735, respectively, with no significant differences between DKI and IVIM or Gleason Scores; MK had higher sensitivity (0.78, p = 0.039), and f's sensitivity was significantly lower (0.51, p = 0.019).

conclusionIn summary, the study underscores DKI's enhanced diagnostic accuracy over IVIM in detecting PCa, with MK standing out for its precision. Conversely, Dp and f lag in diagnostic performance. Despite these promising results, the study highlights the imperative for standardized protocols and study designs to achieve reliable and consistent outcomes.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingHumansMaleMotionSensitivity and SpecificityDiagnostic performanceDiffusion kurtosis imagingDiffusion weighted imagingIntravoxel incoherent motionMeta-analysisProstate cancer

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.