ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Improving membranous urethral length measurements on prostate MRI: a comparison of online training methods.
Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study compared three online training methods to enhance diagnostic performance, reader confidence, and interreader agreement in membranous urethral length (MUL) measurements. MATERIALS AND
methodsNinety-nine study participants were asked to measure the MUL on 20 test cases at the start of the study and rated their confidence level. Participants were then divided semi-randomly into three training groups: Group A (written instructions), Group B (1-month self-study program with case feedback using a dedicated web platform), and Group C (1-day online expert-led case-based training). Groups B and C worked through an identical set of 40 cases. One week after completing training, participants evaluated the same 20 test cases. Diagnostic performance (using expert reference standard), interreader agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC), and reader confidence levels were compared before and after training. Participants completed a questionnaire evaluating their perceptions of the training.
resultsEighty-one participants (82%) completed the study. All groups demonstrated significant improvements in diagnostic performance and confidence (p < 0.001), with similar outcomes across training groups. Interreader agreement improved from ICC 0.52-0.56 pre-training to 0.74-0.80 post-training. Questionnaire responses indicated most found the training appropriate; however, 17% of Group A felt it was insufficient, while 30-35% of Group C found the expert-led training too time-consuming.
conclusionAll training methods-ranging from minimal, with written instructions only, to more comprehensive case-based programs-effectively improved diagnostic performance, reader confidence and interreader agreement for MUL measurements on prostate MRI. Independent online training offers practical advantages over more time-demanding hands-on sessions, supporting broader clinical implementation of MUL-based individualized continence prediction. KEY POINTS: Question Which method of online training is most effective to train radiologists in measuring the membranous urethral length (MUL) on prostate MRI? Findings 81 radiologists showed significant gains in diagnostic performance, confidence and interreader agreement, with similar results after written instructions, case-based self-study, or hands-on expert-led training. Clinical relevance Enhanced accuracy and interreader consistency achieved through online training can facilitate wider clinical adoption of MUL-based continence prediction, strengthening patient counseling and shared decision making in prostate cancer management.
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.