Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39488809›Full record

ReviewAbdominal radiology (New York)2025

MR imaging of the penis: What a radiologist needs to know!

Shruti Kumar, Parv M Mehta, Ranjit K Chaudhary, Pankaj Nepal, Devendra Kumar, Sree Harsha Tirumani, Vijayanadh Ojili

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review 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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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.

Shruti KumarDepartment of Radiology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 W Markham St, Slot 556, Little Rock, AR, 72205, USA. skumar2@uams.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-9031-8316
Parv M MehtaDepartment of Radiology, University of Texas Health, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Ranjit K ChaudharyDepartment of Radiology, St. Vincent's Medical Center, Bridgeport, CT, USA.
Pankaj NepalDepartment of Radiology, Inova Fairfax Hospital, Fairfax, VA, USA.
Devendra KumarDepartment of Clinical Imaging, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar.
Sree Harsha TirumaniDepartment of Radiology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Vijayanadh OjiliDepartment of Radiology, University of Texas Health, San Antonio, TX, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plays an important role in imaging of penile pathologies due to its excellent soft tissue resolution and multiplanar imaging capabilities. This imaging review describes the MRI protocols and anatomical considerations in penile pathologies. MRI not only serves as a complementary tool to ultrasound in evaluation of trauma, infections, inflammatory diseases, and malignancies, but is also used as the definitive imaging modality for evaluation of penile prosthesis and complex cases.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingPenile DiseasesPenisHumansMaleFournier gangreneMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI)Penile prosthesisPeyronie’s diseasePriapism

Identifiers

PMID39488809

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.