ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
A collaborative approach to improving prostate magnetic resonance image quality.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePoor magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) quality can lead to missed prostate cancer diagnoses. Our institution had variability in pre-MRI patient preparation, limited collaboration between radiologists and technologists, and no formal, routine image quality auditing process. The Prostate Imaging Quality system version 1 (PI-QUAL v1) is an established framework for assessing prostate MRI quality. Our quality improvement team aimed to increase the percentage of exams that received a PI-QUALv1 score of ≥ 4 and the percentage with at least one Diffusion Weighted Imaging (DWI) sequence rated optimal.
methodsIn partnership with the American College of Radiology (ACR) Learning Network, we introduced numerous interventions to improve our baseline workflow. During our Intervention Phase (May- September 2023), our team standardized pre-MRI patient instructions and documentation regarding nil by mouth (NPO) status and bladder emptying. MRI technologists received image quality education and were involved in the image scoring process. Our team also used weekly PI-QUALv1 scoring criteria which was later embedded into the reporting system. Interventions were maintained during a Sustainment Phase (October 2023- January 2024).
results1206 MRI prostate exams were audited. From the Pre-intervention to Sustainment Phase, the percentage of exams with PI-QUAL score ≥ 4 increased from 90% (95% CI: 87-94%) to 97% (95% CI: 95-99%). The percentage of exams meeting DWI criteria increased from 77% (95% CI: 74-79%) to 83% (95% CI: 78-88%). Team members reported that integrating scoring into the reporting system saved time. Patients and staff reported that standardized instructions led to a better understanding of how patient preparation improves image quality.
conclusionsConsistent patient preparation, team collaboration, and standardized quality scoring led to promising quality trends without using enema. PI-QUAL scores and DWI quality reached the upper limits of performance previously described by the ACR Learning Network Prostate MR QI Collaborative.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40603734What 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.