Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28267360›Full record

ArticleAJR. American journal of roentgenology2017

A Pilot Comparative Study of Quantitative Ultrasound, Conventional Ultrasound, and MRI for Predicting Histology-Determined Steatosis Grade in Adult Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease.

Jeremy S Paige, Gregory S Bernstein, Elhamy Heba, Eduardo A C Costa, Marilia Fereirra, Tanya Wolfson, Anthony C Gamst, Mark A Valasek, Grace Y Lin, Aiguo Han and 5 more

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in AJR. American journal of roentgenology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 85 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
85citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
9.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

85 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 154 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

25 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jeremy S Paige1 Liver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, 408 Dickinson St, San Diego, CA 92103-8226.
Gregory S Bernstein1 Liver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, 408 Dickinson St, San Diego, CA 92103-8226.
Elhamy Heba1 Liver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, 408 Dickinson St, San Diego, CA 92103-8226.
Eduardo A C Costa1 Liver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, 408 Dickinson St, San Diego, CA 92103-8226.
Marilia Fereirra1 Liver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, 408 Dickinson St, San Diego, CA 92103-8226.
Tanya Wolfson1 Liver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, 408 Dickinson St, San Diego, CA 92103-8226.
Anthony C Gamst1 Liver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, 408 Dickinson St, San Diego, CA 92103-8226.
Mark A Valasek3 Department of Pathology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA.
Grace Y Lin3 Department of Pathology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA.
Aiguo Han4 Bioacoustics Research Laboratory, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL.
John W Erdman5 Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL.
William D O'Brien4 Bioacoustics Research Laboratory, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL.
Michael P Andre1 Liver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, 408 Dickinson St, San Diego, CA 92103-8226.
Rohit Loomba7 NAFLD Translational Research Unit, Division of Gastroenterology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA.
Claude B Sirlin1 Liver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, 408 Dickinson St, San Diego, CA 92103-8226.
University of California, San Diego · USUniversity of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · US

Funding

Technical Validation of MRI Biomarkers of Liver FatR01DK088925 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI REEDER, SCOTT B., SIRLIN, CLAUDE B · 2010 to 2021
$7.1M
Ultrasound-induced tissue damage assessmentR37EB002641 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN · PI O'BRIEN, WILLIAM D. · 2006 to 2015
$6.1M
Quantitative Ultrasonic Imaging of the BreastR01CA111289 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN · PI O'BRIEN, WILLIAM D. · 2007 to 2011
$5.0M
QUS Technology for Diagnosis and Grading of Hepatic Steatosis in NAFLDR01DK106419 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI LOOMBA, ROHIT, SIRLIN, CLAUDE B · 2015 to 2019
$3.4M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA111289NIBIB NIH HHS R37 EB002641NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK088925NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK106419
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe purpose of this study is to explore the diagnostic performance of two investigational quantitative ultrasound (QUS) parameters, attenuation coefficient and backscatter coefficient, in comparison with conventional ultrasound (CUS) and MRI-estimated proton density fat fraction (PDFF) for predicting histology-confirmed steatosis grade in adults with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). SUBJECTS AND

methodsIn this prospectively designed pilot study, 61 adults with histology-confirmed NAFLD were enrolled from September 2012 to February 2014. Subjects underwent QUS, CUS, and MRI examinations within 100 days of clinical-care liver biopsy. QUS parameters (attenuation coefficient and backscatter coefficient) were estimated using a reference phantom technique by two analysts independently. Three-point ordinal CUS scores intended to predict steatosis grade (1, 2, or 3) were generated independently by two radiologists on the basis of QUS features. PDFF was estimated using an advanced chemical shift-based MRI technique. Using histologic examination as the reference standard, ROC analysis was performed. Optimal attenuation coefficient, backscatter coefficient, and PDFF cutoff thresholds were identified, and the accuracy of attenuation coefficient, backscatter coefficient, PDFF, and CUS to predict steatosis grade was determined. Interobserver agreement for attenuation coefficient, backscatter coefficient, and CUS was analyzed.

resultsCUS had 51.7% grading accuracy. The raw and cross-validated steatosis grading accuracies were 61.7% and 55.0%, respectively, for attenuation coefficient, 68.3% and 68.3% for backscatter coefficient, and 76.7% and 71.3% for MRI-estimated PDFF. Interobserver agreements were 53.3% for CUS (κ = 0.61), 90.0% for attenuation coefficient (κ = 0.87), and 71.7% for backscatter coefficient (κ = 0.82) (p < 0.0001 for all).

conclusionPreliminary observations suggest that QUS parameters may be more accurate and provide higher interobserver agreement than CUS for predicting hepatic steatosis grade in patients with NAFLD.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBiopsyCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedNon-alcoholic Fatty Liver DiseasePhantoms, ImagingPilot ProjectsPredictive Value of TestsProspective StudiesUltrasonographyattenuationbackscattergrading accuracyinterobserver agreementnonalcoholic fatty liver diseasenonalcoholic steatohepatitisproton density fat fractionquantitative imaging biomarkersquantitative ultrasound

Identifiers

PMID28267360
PMCPMC5512552
OpenAlexW2593832540

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.