ReviewEuropean radiology2026
Prostate MRI quality improvement: a Roadmap from the ESUR Prostate MRI Working Group.
Review in European radiology, 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.
- Repositioning the Digital Rectal Examination in the Era of Risk-Adapted Prostate Cancer Diagnostics: Right Tool to the Right Patient at the Right Time.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become a crucial tool in diagnosing and managing prostate cancer, mainly by helping to avoid unnecessary biopsies and enhancing the detection of clinically significant disease. However, its clinical usefulness is often limited by wide variation in how images are acquired, interpreted, and reported worldwide. This inconsistency affects diagnostic accuracy and patient outcomes. In response, the Quality Improvement Subgroup of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) Prostate MRI Working Group has created a practical, three-step quality-improvement framework aimed at standardising and improving prostate MRI practices. This framework consists of: Step 1: 'Build it right', establishing a foundation of technical excellence through adherence to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) technical standards, objective quality assessment using the Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score, and systematic artefact reduction. Step 2: 'See it right', emphasising interpretive excellence via structured training, institutional quality assurance metrics, and multidisciplinary collaboration. Step 3: 'Improve and innovate', promoting continual refinement through emerging technologies such as AI-driven assessment, deep learning reconstruction, and remote supervision. By incorporating this structured approach into daily practice, this framework aims to ensure that prostate MRI consistently fulfils its promise of accurate, reproducible, and patient-centred care. A coordinated effort towards international implementation, benchmarking, and outcome-based validation represents the next critical step to maximise global impact. KEY POINTS: Question Wide variation in prostate MRI acquisition, image quality, and reporting undermines diagnostic accuracy. A structured roadmap is needed to ensure consistent quality and reproducible practice. Findings The ESUR Prostate MRI Working Group outlines a three-step framework - 'Build it right', 'See it right', 'Improve and innovate' - to standardise acquisition, interpretation, and quality assurance. Clinical relevance Applying this roadmap in clinical practice aims to enhance diagnostic confidence and promote consistent, high-quality prostate cancer care across diverse healthcare settings.
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.