ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2025
Improving prostate MRI quality and its diagnostic impact: a prospective quality improvement initiative.
Article 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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of central review and MRI image quality on prostate cancer diagnosis and biopsy decision-making in referred patients.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- ESR Essentials: MRI-based T-staging in prostate cancer-practice recommendations by the European Society of Urogenital Radiology.European radiology · 2026Review
- Prostate MRI quality improvement: a Roadmap from the ESUR Prostate MRI Working Group.European radiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeHigh-quality imaging is critical for accurate prostate cancer assessment using MRI. This study describes a quality improvement (QI) initiative for prostate MRI and evaluates the impact of image quality on diagnostic performance.
methodsIn this prospective study, 1328 patients underwent prostate MRI between March 2023 and March 2024. The QI initiative focused on patient preparation, protocol standardization, technologist education, and quality control. Image quality was prospectively scored using the Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) system. Diagnostic performance was assessed by comparing the positive predictive value (PPV) of PI-RADS ≥ 3 lesions before and after the intervention and between exams with optimal (PI-QUAL ≥ 4) and suboptimal quality. Fisher's exact test was used for comparisons. Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was defined as Gleason Grade Group ≥ 2.
resultsThe proportion of PI-QUAL ≥ 4 exams increased from 67 to 84% after the intervention (p < 0.001). The PPV for any prostate cancer improved from 65 to 78% (p = 0.03), though the increase for csPCa (from 42 to 46%) was not statistically significant (p = 0.5). No significant difference in PPV was observed between optimal and suboptimal exams for any cancer (76% vs. 77%, p = 0.9) or csPCa (45% vs. 48%, p = 0.7).
conclusionThe QI initiative significantly improved image quality and overall cancer detection rates. However, the association between image quality and csPCa detection was not statistically significant, possibly due to greater improvements in T2-weighted images vs. diffusion weighted images and high reader expertise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40439721What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.