Table 3.
Methodological and imaging protocol characteristics regarding the diagnostic test
| Study | FS (T) | De | BF | RS | B | TH (×10−3 mm2/s) | TI (days) | Coil |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kumar et al. | 1.5 | Pros | 0/250/500/750/1,000 | 1 | Y | 1.17 | <7 | B |
| Aydin et al. | 1.5 | Pros | 0/800 | 3 | Y | – | 28/? | A |
| Koo et al. | 3.0 | Retro | 0/300/700/1,000/2,000 | 2 | Y | LOS-3 | 34 | A |
| Ibrahiem et al. | 1.5 | Pros | 0/800 | 1 | Y | 1.0 | 16.7 | A |
| Kim et al. | 3.0 | Retro | 0/1,000/2,000 | 2 | Y | – | 39 | A |
| Yamamura et al. | 1.5 | Retro | 50/400/800 | 1 | N | 1.21 | – | B |
| Girometti et al. | 3.0 | Pros | 0/800/1,000 | 1 | UN | 0.9 | 27 | A |
| Selnæs et al. | 3.0 | Pros | 50/300/600/800 | 2 | UN | 1.33 | 5.5 | A |
| Portalez et al. | 1.5 | Pros | 0/600 | 1 | UN | 1.24 | 11 | B |
| Tamada et al. | 1.5 | Retro | – | 1 | Y | – | 23 | A |
| Rinaldi et al. | 1.5 | Pros | 0/250/500/750/1,000 | 3 | UN | 1.24 | – | B |
| Yagci et al. | 1.5 | Pros | 0/800 | 1 | Y | 1.2 | <7 | B |
| Weidner et al. | 1.5 | Retro | 0/50/150/300/600/800 | 1 | Y | LOS-4 | – | B |
| Kim et al. | 3.0 | Pros | 0/1,000 | 2 | UN |
1.67c 1.61d |
16 | A |
| Chen et al. | 1.5 | Retro | 0/1,000 | 1 | Y | LOS-4 | <90 | A |
| Iwazawa et al. | 1.5 | Retro | 0/1,000 | 1 | Y | – | 8 | A |
| Miao et al. | 3.0 | Retro | 0/300/600 | 1 | Y | LOS-4 | <21 | A |
| Isebaert et al. | 1.5 | Pros | 0/50/100/500/750/1,000 | 2 | Y | – | 16 | A |
| Vilanova et al. | 1.5 | Retro | 0/1,000 | 3 | Y | LOS-3 | 13 | B |
| Peng et al. | 1.5 | Retro |
0/50/200/1,500/2,000a 0/1,000b |
2 | UN | 0.99 | 34.5 | B |
| Lim et al. | 1.5 | Retro | 0/1,000 | 2 | Y | LOS-4 | 11 | B |
FS field strength, De design (Pros prospective, Retro retrospective), BF b factor, RS reference standard (1 TRUS-guided biopsy, 2 radical prostatectomy results, 3 1 or 2), B blind (Y yes, N no, UN unknown), TH threshold (the diagnostic threshold of ADC), LOS level of suspicion (1 definitely no tumor, 2 probably no tumor, 3 equivocal, 4 probably tumor, 5 definitely tumor), TI time intervals, Coil A without the use of endorectal coil, Coil B with the use of an endorectal coil
a b values used by 29 patients
b b values used by 24 patients
c Diagnostic threshold for peripheral zone
d Diagnostic threshold for transition zone