ReviewLiver cancer2012
Comparison of international guidelines for noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma.
Review in Liver cancer, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers.
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
42 citing papers in PubMed, 82 citations in OpenAlex.
- Abdominal and Bowel Ultrasound Knowledge Among Young Gastroenterologists: Results of an Italian Survey.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- HEPNET Position Statement-I, Case Definition, Classification, Screening & Diagnosis of Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease (MASLD) in Pakistan: A Resource for Primary and Secondary Care Physicians.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Review
- Training on contrast-enhanced ultrasound LI-RADS classification for resident radiologists: a retrospective comparison of performance after training.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
- High frame-rate contrast enhanced ultrasound (HIFR-CEUS) in the characterization of small hepatic lesions in cirrhotic patients.Journal of ultrasound · 2023Article
- Deep learning radiomics for focal liver lesions diagnosis on long-range contrast-enhanced ultrasound and clinical factors.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
- A novel computer-aided diagnostic system for accurate detection and grading of liver tumors.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Review
- High HBV Load Weakens Predictive Effect of Serum miR-122 on Response to Sorafenib in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients.Journal of oncology · 2021Article
- Usefulness ofTaehan Yongsang Uihakhoe chi · 2020Article
- Diagnostic efficacy of dynamic liver imaging using qualitative diagnostic algorithm versus LI-RADS v2018 lexicon for atypical versus classical HCC lesions: A decade of experience from a tertiary liver institute.European journal of radiology open · 2020Article
- Comparison of international guidelines for noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: 2018 update.Clinical and molecular hepatology · 2019Review
- Liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS) v2018: comparison between computed tomography and gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.Japanese journal of radiology · 2019Article
- Imaging of non-neuronopathic Gaucher disease: recent advances in quantitative imaging and comprehensive assessment of disease involvement.Insights into imaging · 2019Review
- Emerging Role of Hepatobiliary Magnetic Resonance Contrast Media and Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound for Noninvasive Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Emphasis on Recent Updates in Major Guidelines.Korean journal of radiology · 2019Review
- Article
- Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Current Imaging Modalities for Diagnosis and Prognosis.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2019Review
- Ultrasonography in Gastroenterology: The Need for Training.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2018Article
- Interobserver and intermodality agreement of standardized algorithms for non-invasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in high-risk patients: CEUS-LI-RADS versus MRI-LI-RADS.European radiology · 2018Article
- Diagnostic value of imaging examinations in patients with primary hepatocellular carcinoma.World journal of clinical cases · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this review is to present the similarities and differences between the latest guidelines for noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocelullar carcinoma (HCC) of American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL), Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL), and Japanese Society of Hepatology. All the four guidelines defined a typical HCC vascular pattern as the homogeneous hyperenhancement (wash-in) in the arterial phase followed by wash-out in the venous or late phase. The AASLD and EASL guidelines accept only four-phase computed tomography and dynamic contrast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for HCC diagnosis, whereas the APASL and Japanese guidelines also accept contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS). Regarding CEUS, the APASL guidelines accept the use of Levovist or Sonazoid as contrast agents, whereas the Japanese guidelines accept only the use of Sonazoid. The AASLD and EASL guidelines recommend using only extracellular contrast agents such as gadolinium for MRI, whereas the APASL guidelines also included the use of super paramagnetic iron oxid-MRI, and the Japanese guidelines recommended the use of gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylentriamine pentaacetic acid-MRI. The AASLD and EASL guidelines propos a diagnostic algorithm starting from the tumor size, whereas the APASL and Japanese guidelines recommend an algorithm starting from arterial tumor vascularity (hyper- or hypovascular in the arterial phase). In conclusion, important differences exist among the Western and Eastern guidelines for noninvasive HCC diagnosis.
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.