ArticleJournal of medical ultrasonics (2001)2017
Multimodality imaging to assess immediate response following irreversible electroporation in patients with malignant hepatic tumors.
Article in Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Sonazoid-Enhanced Ultrasonography for Detection of Liver Metastasis.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Pooled it
- A Systematic Review about Imaging and Histopathological Findings for Detecting and Evaluating Electroporation Based Treatments Response.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- Article
- Diagnostic evaluation and ablation treatments assessment in hepatocellular carcinoma.Infectious agents and cancer · 2021Review
- Irreversible electroporation of hepatocellular carcinoma: the role of ultrasonography.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), contrast-enhanced multiphase CT (CECT), and gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI (EOB-MRI) in identifying residual tumor in the subacute follow-up of patients with malignant hepatic tumors treated by irreversible electroporation (IRE).
methodsWe enrolled 16 patients with 21 hepatic lesions treated by IRE and examined by CEUS and CECT at 1 day after IRE and by EOB-MRI at 7 days after IRE. Follow-up examinations by EOB-MRI or CECT and CEUS were performed at 3-month intervals. Two radiologists independently reviewed the images and assessed the probability of residual tumor using a five-point scale with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. The sensitivity and specificity were also evaluated. Verifiable local recurrence was assessed using follow-up imaging as the reference standard.
resultsThe mean area under the ROC curve was significantly higher for CEUS (0.980) than for CECT (0.742, P < 0.01) and EOB-MRI (0.806, P < 0.01), as were the sensitivity and specificity (mean 85.7 and 85.7% for CEUS, respectively, vs 64.3 and 46.4% for CECT and 78.6 and 64.3% for EOB-MRI).
conclusionCEUS was found to be superior to CECT and EOB-MRI for the diagnosis of residual tumor in the subacute phase following IRE.
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.