ArticleLa Radiologia medica2013
Accuracy of visual analysis vs. apparent diffusion coefficient quantification in differentiating solid benign and malignant focal liver lesions with diffusion-weighted imaging.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value in differentiating malignant from benign solid liver lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The British journal of radiology · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Preoperative evaluation of the histological grade of hepatocellular carcinoma with diffusion-weighted imaging: a meta-analysis.PloS one · 2015Pooled it
- Differentiation of hepatocellular adenoma by subtype and hepatocellular carcinoma in non-cirrhotic liver by fractal analysis of perfusion MRI.Insights into imaging · 2022Article
- Evaluation of ADCEuropean journal of radiology open · 2018Article
- [Incidence of non-metastatic liver lesions in tumor patients: consequences for chemotherapy and local ablative procedures].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe authors compared the accuracy of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) visual analysis (VA) vs. apparent diffusion coefficient quantification (ADC-Q) in assessing malignancy of solid focal liver lesions (FLLs). MATERIALS AND
methodsUsing a 1.5-T system, two radiologists retrospectively assessed as benign or malignant 50 solid FLLs: (a) by VA of signal intensity on DWI images at b=800 s/mm(2) and ADC map; (b) by quantifying lesion ADC. Reference standard included histology or follow-up confirmation of diagnosis by a consensus panel. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed.
resultsbecause of 20 false-negative hepatocellular carcinomas, VA showed lower accuracy than ADC-Q (52.0% VS. 68.0%). however, stratified accuracy for metastases was higher with VA (75.0 VS. 66%). ADC and signal features of malignant and benign FLLs were found to largely overlap.
conclusionsVA performed worse than ADC-Q for hepatocellular carcinoma and better for metastases. Overall, the accuracy of both methods was limited because of the overlap in visual appearance and ADC values between solid benign and malignant FLLs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22986693What 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.