Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29368164›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2018

Does a combined CT and MRI protocol enhance the diagnostic efficacy of LI-RADS in the categorization of hepatic observations? A prospective comparative study.

Mohammad Abd Alkhalik Basha, Mohamad Zakarya AlAzzazy, Ayman F Ahmed, Hala Y Yousef, Samar Mohamad Shehata, Dena Abd El Aziz El Sammak, Talaat Fathy, Ahmed Ali Obaya, Eman H Abdelbary

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

Mohammad Abd Alkhalik BashaDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt. drmohammad_basha@yahoo.com.
Mohamad Zakarya AlAzzazyDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.
Ayman F AhmedDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.
Hala Y YousefDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.
Samar Mohamad ShehataDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.
Dena Abd El Aziz El SammakDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.
Talaat FathyDepartment of Tropical Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.
Ahmed Ali ObayaDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.
Eman H AbdelbaryDepartment of Pathology, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare diagnostic performance and agreement between CT, MRI and combined CT/MRI in reference to LI-RADS classification system to categorize hepatic observations detected in hepatic patients during screening ultrasound.

methods240 patients with 296 liver observations detected during ultrasound surveillance underwent hepatic CT and MRI examinations, histopathology, and clinical and radiological follow-up. Using LI-RADS v2014, six radiologists evaluated the observations independently and assigned a LI-RADS category to each observation using CT, MRI and combined CT/MRI.

resultsCombined CT and MRI in LI-RADS yielded better accuracy (91.29 %), sensitivity (90.71 %) and specificity (92.31 %) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) diagnosis than using MRI or CT alone; accuracy, sensitivity and specificity decreased to 85.37 %, 86.34 %, and 83.65 %, respectively, for MRI and 67.6 %, 54.10 % and 91.35 %, respectively, for CT. The intraclass agreement of the LI-RADS scores between CT, MRI and combined CT/MRI was excellent (κ=0.9624 (95 % CI: 0.9318-0.9806)).

conclusionCT and MRI are complementary to each other. Combined CT/MRI enabled a more precise determination of LI-RADS category of hepatic observations; however, due to the expense and minor increase in accuracy, the combined methodology should only be utilized in cases of suspected HCC. KEY POINTS: • Hepatic observation may be categorized differently depending on the imaging modality used. • We compared LI-RADS categorization between CT, MRI and combined CT/MRI. • MRI produces higher accuracy and sensitivity, while CT produces higher specificity. • Combining CT and MRI improves LIRADS categorization reports. • Considering additional cost, combined methodology could be restricted to challenging cases.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCarcinoma, HepatocellularFemaleHumansLiver CirrhosisLiver NeoplasmsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedMultimodal ImagingProspective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityTomography, X-Ray ComputedUltrasonographyHepatocellular carcinomaMagnetic resonance imagingProspective studyTomographyUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID29368164

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.