ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2018
Tardus parvus waveforms in Doppler ultrasonography for hepatic artery stenosis after liver transplantation: can a new cut-off value guide the next step?
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ultrasonography after adult living donor liver transplantation: a review of vascular and biliary complications.Journal of ultrasound · 2026Review
- Ultrasound innovations in abdominal radiology: multiparametic imaging in liver transplantation.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- Prognostic value of ultrasound in early arterial complications post liver transplant.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeConsidering the high false-positive diagnosis of the tardus parvus waveform (TPW) in Doppler ultrasonography (DUS) for hepatic artery stenosis (HAS) after liver transplantation (LT), this study aimed to determine clinical features and new cut-off values to help guide treatment. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study was approved by an Institutional Review Board. A total of 171 LT recipients were included and underwent DUS and either computed tomography angiography or digital subtraction angiography with an interval < 4 weeks at least 1 month post-LT. The DUS of 69 patients exhibited TPW [defined as resistive index (RI) < 0.5 and systolic acceleration time (SAT) > 0.08 s]. A multilevel likelihood ratio (LR) analysis was used to explore new cut-off values for DUS. In addition, abnormal liver function was considered additional evidence (defined as any liver enzyme > 3-fold of the upper limit of normal level or 2-fold increased). The results were stratified into three categories, category 1 (subjects with traditional TPW), category 2 (subjects with traditional TPW and abnormal liver function), and category 3 (subjects with traditional TPW and abnormal liver function, or with new cut-off values), and the diagnostic performance of each category was analyzed.
resultsThe LR analysis revealed new cut-off values of RI < 0.4 (LR = 10.58) or SAT > 0.12 s (LR = 16.46). The false-positive rates for categories 2 and 3 were significantly lower (7.6% vs. 18.1%, P = 0.038; 1.9% vs. 18.1%, P < 0.001, respectively) than those for category 1, while the sensitivity for category 2 was significantly lower (41.8% vs. 74.6%, P < 0.001; 41.8% vs. 61.2%, P = 0.038, respectively) than that for categories 1 and 3.
conclusionUsing either (1) RI < 0.4 or SAT > 0.12 s, or (2) traditional TPW (RI < 0.5 and SAT > 0.08 s) in the presence of abnormal liver functions as the DUS criteria for HAS will significantly decrease the false-positive rate compared to traditional TPW without a significant increase in the false-negative rate.
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.