ArticleScientific reports2025
Multicenter analysis for inter reader agreement of PIQUAL score v2 for basic readers in prostate MRI.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Delphi consensus of specialist radiologists on imaging criteria for gadolinium contrast use and whole-body MRI in prostate cancer.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Real-world Inter-rater Agreement of PI-QUAL Version 2 for Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Quality Assessment and Its Association with Diagnostic Accuracy.European urology open science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) V2 is a simplified update of PI-QUAL V1 for assessing image quality in multiparametric prostate MRI (mpMRI), aimed at improving clinical use and reproducibility. This study evaluated inter-reader agreement of PI-QUAL V2 among basic prostate readers using multicenter mpMRI data and compared it to PI-QUAL V1. Five readers assessed T2-weighted, DWI (including ADC maps), and DCE images from 274 men (median age: 71 years, IQR: 60-78) across five centers. Inter-reader agreement was measured using weighted Gwet's AC1 coefficients and compared using bootstrapped confidence intervals. For PI-QUAL V1, coefficients ranged from 0.659 to 0.855, indicating substantial-to-almost perfect agreement. For PI-QUAL V2, coefficients ranged from 0.821 to 0.897, showing almost perfect agreement. All 10 pairwise comparisons achieved almost perfect agreement for PI-QUAL V2, compared to only 3 of 10 for V1. Additionally, three comparisons showed non-overlapping confidence intervals, indicating statistically significant improvements with V2. PI-QUAL V2 demonstrated consistently higher inter-reader agreement than V1, with basic prostate readers achieving almost perfect agreement across multicenter mpMRI data. These findings highlight the improved reliability and clinical applicability of PI-QUAL V2.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.