ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2018
Assessment of advanced hepatic MR elastography methods for susceptibility artifact suppression in clinical patients.
Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- KASL clinical practice guidelines for noninvasive tests to assess liver fibrosis in chronic liver disease.Clinical and molecular hepatology · 2024Guideline
- KASL clinical practice guidelines: Management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.Clinical and molecular hepatology · 2021Guideline
- Evaluation of Liver Fibrosis through Noninvasive Tests in Steatotic Liver Disease.The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2024Review
- Feasibility and performance of spin-echo EPI MR elastography at 3 Tesla for staging hepatic fibrosis in the presence of hepatic iron overload.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Article
- Liver stiffness measurement by magnetic resonance elastography predicts cirrhosis and decompensation in alcohol-related liver disease.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Article
- Technical Success and Reliability of Magnetic Resonance Elastography in Patients with Hepatic Iron Overload.Academic radiology · 2024Article
- MR Elastography: Practical Questions, From theAJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2024Review
- Magnetic resonance elastography for noninvasive detection of liver fibrosis: is there an added value of 3D acquisition?Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Article
- Quality Control of Magnetic Resonance Elastography Using Percent Measurable Liver Volume Estimation.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2022Article
- Intra-patient comparison of 3D and 2D magnetic resonance elastography techniques for assessment of liver stiffness.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2022Article
- Magnetic resonance elastography of the liver: everything you need to know to get started.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2022Review
- MR elastography of liver: current status and future perspectives.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2020Review
- Prospective comparison of transient, point shear wave, and magnetic resonance elastography for staging liver fibrosis.European radiology · 2019Article
- 3D MR Elastography of Hepatocellular Carcinomas as a Potential Biomarker for Predicting Tumor Recurrence.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2019Article
- Magnetic Resonance Elastography of Liver: Current Update.Topics in magnetic resonance imaging : TMRI · 2018Review
- Magnetic resonance elastography: beyond liver fibrosis-a case-based pictorial review.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2018Review
- Feasibility and agreement of stiffness measurements using gradient-echo and spin-echo MR elastography sequences in unselected patients undergoing liver MRI.The British journal of radiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess the success rate, image quality, and the ability to stage liver fibrosis of a standard 2D gradient-recalled echo (GRE) and four different spin-echo (SE) magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) sequences in patients with different liver iron concentrations. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 332 patients who underwent 3T MRE examinations that included liver fat and iron quantification were enrolled, including 136 patients with all five MRE techniques. Thirty-four patients had biopsy results for fibrosis staging. The liver stiffness, region of interest area, image quality, and success rate of the five sequences were compared in 115/136 patients. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) and the accuracies for diagnosing early-stage fibrosis and advanced fibrosis were compared. The effect of BMI (body mass index), the R2* relaxation time, and fat fraction on the image quality and liver stiffness measurements were analyzed.
resultsThe success rates were significantly higher in the four SE sequences (99.1-100%) compared with GRE MRE (85.3%) (all P < 0.001). There were significant differences of the mean ROI area between every pair of sequences (all P < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in the AUC of the five MRE sequences for discriminating advanced fibrosis (10 P-values ranging from 0.2410-0.9171). R2* had a significant effect on the success rate and image quality for the noniron 2D echo-planar imaging (EPI), 3D EPI and 2D GRE (all P < 0.001) sequences. BMI had a significant effect on the iron 2D EPI (P = 0.0230) and iron 2D SE (P = 0.0040) sequences.
conclusionAll five techniques showed good diagnostic performance in staging liver fibrosis. The SE MRE sequences had higher success rates and better image quality than GRE MRE in 3T clinical hepatic imaging. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 5 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:976-987.
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.