Prostate magnetic resonance imaging and the value of experience: An intrareader variability study.

Thomas Whish-Wilson, Jo-Lynn Tan, William Cross, Lih-Ming Wong, Tom Sutherland

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Asian journal of urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Thomas Whish-WilsonDepartment of Surgery, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, 41 Victoria Pde, Fitzroy VIC, Australia.

Jo-Lynn TanDepartment of Surgery, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, 41 Victoria Pde, Fitzroy VIC, Australia.

William CrossFaculty of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne VIC, Australia.

Lih-Ming WongDepartment of Surgery, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, 41 Victoria Pde, Fitzroy VIC, Australia.

Tom SutherlandFaculty of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To measure the intraobserver concordance of an experienced genitourinary radiologist reporting of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate (mpMRIp) scans over time. Methods: An experienced genitourinary radiologist re-reported his original 100 consecutive mpMRIp scans using Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) after 5 years of further experience comprising >1000 scans. Intraobserver agreement was measured using Cohen's kappa. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and accuracy were calculated, and comparison of sensitivity was performed using McNemar's test. Results: Ninety-six mpMRIp scans were included in our final analysis. Of the 96 patients, 53 (55.2%) patients underwent subsequent biopsy ( Conclusion: The intraobserver agreement for a novice to experienced radiologist reporting mpMRIp using PI-RADS v2 is moderate. Reduced sensitivity is off-set by improved specificity and PPV, which validate mpMRIp as a gold standard for prebiopsy screening.

Indexed as

IntrareaderMagnetic resonance imagingProstate biopsyProstate cancerProstate Imaging-Reporting and Data System

Identifiers

PMID39186447

DOI10.1016/j.ajur.2021.08.002

PMCPMC10659966

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY-NC-ND

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.