Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39758711›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2025

An online national quality assessment survey of prostate MRI reading: interreader variability in prostate volume measurement and PI-RADS classification.

Jonas Wallström, Erik Thimansson, Jim Andersson, Mathias Karlsson, Sophia Zackrisson, Ola Bratt, Fredrik Jäderling

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of radiology open, 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. Article
  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.

Jonas WallströmDepartment of Radiology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.
Erik ThimanssonDepartment of Translational Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Sweden.
Jim AnderssonEqualis AB, Uppsala, Sweden.
Mathias KarlssonDepartment of Medical Sciences, Clinical Chemistry, Uppsala University, Sweden.
Sophia ZackrissonDepartment of Translational Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Sweden.
Ola BrattDepartment of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.
Fredrik JäderlingInstitution of Molecular Medicine and Surgery (MMK), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: High-quality assessment of prostate MRI is fundamental in both clinical practice and screening. There is a lack of national level data on variability in prostate volume measurement and PI-RADS assessment. Methods of quality assurance need to be developed. Methods: All Swedish radiology departments were invited to participate in an external quality assurance of prostate MRI reading. Ten prostate MRI cases were selected by an expert panel to reflect common findings. Readers measured whole gland volume (ellipsoid formula method) and assigned a PI-RADS score in a web-based PACS with full clinical functionality. Expert consensus was used as reference standard. Descriptive statistics were used to show the distribution of volume measurements and PSA density. Reader agreement was assessed using percentages and kappa scores. A feedback document was sent to all participants upon completion of the quality assurance program. Results: Forty-three radiologists representing 17 departments read at least 7 out of 10 cases. The median difference in prostate volume assessment compared to the reference volume for the 10 cases ranged from -23 mL to + 6 mL. Per case agreement ranged from 33 % to 86 % for the assigned PI-RADS score and from 35 % to 98 % for PI-RADS 1-3 versus PI-RADS 4-5. Interreader agreement was moderate with a median kappa score of 0.53 (IQR 0.48-0.62). Conclusion: This online model for national quality assurance programs was feasible. Rather large per-case reader variations in prostate volume assessment and PI-RADS scoring were shown. To reduce variability in clinical practice, systematic interreader comparisons should be encouraged.

Indexed as

Magnetic resonance imagingObserver VariationProstatic NeoplasmsRadiologyTraining

Identifiers

PMID39758711
PMCPMC11699621

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.