Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25436458›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Decreases in molecular diffusion, perfusion fraction and perfusion-related diffusion in fibrotic livers: a prospective clinical intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging study.

Pu-Xuan Lu, Hua Huang, Jing Yuan, Feng Zhao, Zhi-Yi Chen, Qinwei Zhang, Anil T Ahuja, Bo-Ping Zhou, Yì-Xiáng J Wáng

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. [Expert consensus on MRI diagnosis of liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis B (version 2023)].Zhonghua gan zang bing za zhi = Zhonghua ganzangbing zazhi = Chinese journal of hepatology · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Pu-Xuan LuDepartment of Radiology, The Shenzhen No. 3 People's Hospital, Guangdong Medical College, Shenzhen, China.
Hua HuangDepartment of Radiology, The Shenzhen No. 3 People's Hospital, Guangdong Medical College, Shenzhen, China.
Jing YuanDepartment of Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR.
Feng ZhaoDepartment of Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR.
Zhi-Yi ChenLaboratory of Ultrasound Molecular Imaging, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Qinwei ZhangDepartment of Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR.
Anil T AhujaDepartment of Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR.
Bo-Ping ZhouDepartment of Hepatology, The Shenzhen No. 3 People's Hospital, Guangdong Medical College, Shenzhen, China.
Yì-Xiáng J WángDepartment of Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR.
Prince of Wales Hospital · CNGuangdong Medical College · CNChinese University of Hong Kong · CNGuangzhou Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study was aimed to determine whether pure molecular-based diffusion coefficient (D) and perfusion-related diffusion parameters (perfusion fraction f, perfusion-related diffusion coefficient D*) differ in healthy livers and fibrotic livers through intra-voxel incoherent motion (IVIM) MR imaging. MATERIAL AND

methods17 healthy volunteers and 34 patients with histopathologically confirmed liver fibrosis patients (stage 1 = 14, stage 2 = 8, stage 3 & 4 = 12, METAVIR grading) were included. Liver MR imaging was performed at 1.5-T. IVIM diffusion weighted imaging sequence was based on standard single-shot DW spin echo-planar imaging, with ten b values of 10, 20, 40, 60, 80, 100, 150, 200, 400, 800 sec/mm2 respectively. Pixel-wise realization and regions-of-interest based quantification of IVIM parameters were performed.

resultsD, f, and D* in healthy volunteer livers and patient livers were 1.096±0.155 vs 0.917±0.152 (10(-3) mm2/s, p = 0.0015), 0.164±0.021 vs 0.123±0.029 (p<0.0001), and 13.085±2.943 vs 9.423±1.737 (10(-3) mm2/s, p<0.0001) respectively, all significantly lower in fibrotic livers. As the fibrosis severity progressed, D, f, and D* values decreased, with a trend significant for f and D*.

conclusionFibrotic liver is associated with lower pure molecular diffusion, lower perfusion volume fraction, and lower perfusion-related diffusion. The decrease of f and D* in the liver is significantly associated liver fibrosis severity.

Indexed as

AdultAgedDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingEcho-Planar ImagingFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedLiverLiver CirrhosisMaleMiddle AgedPerfusionProspective StudiesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25436458
PMCPMC4250077
OpenAlexW2061615516

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.