Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30105242›Full record

ArticleBioMed research international2018

Comparison of LI-RADS v.2017 and ESGAR Guidelines Imaging Criteria in HCC Diagnosis Using MRI with Hepatobiliary Contrast Agents.

Grzegorz Rosiak, Joanna Podgorska, Edyta Rosiak, Andrzej Cieszanowski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BioMed research international, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

4 authors.

Grzegorz Rosiak2nd Radiology Department, Warsaw Medical University, SPCSK, ul. Banacha 1a, Warsaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-0833-7527
Joanna Podgorska2nd Radiology Department, Warsaw Medical University, SPCSK, ul. Banacha 1a, Warsaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-8649-4165
Edyta Rosiak2nd Radiology Department, Warsaw Medical University, SPCSK, ul. Banacha 1a, Warsaw, Poland.
Andrzej CieszanowskiDepartment of Radiology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Centre, Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study was to assess and compare diagnostic ability of LI-RADS (LR) v. 2017 and ESGAR guidelines in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) diagnosis using MRI with hepatobiliary contrast agents.

methodsSeventy pathologically confirmed lesions in 32 patients (24 males and 8 females) who had MRI with hepatobiliary contrast done before surgery or biopsy were reviewed retrospectively. Six lesions were <10mm, 31 lesions 10-19mm, and 33 lesions ≥20mm. Two readers assessed all lesions according to LI-RADS v.2017 criteria and ESGAR consensus statement on liver MR imaging and clinical use of liver-specific contrast agents. Statistical analysis was performed to compare diagnostic ability of both guidelines including receiver operative curves (ROC) and area under curve (AUC).

resultsFor LR ≥ 4 sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and AUC were 96%, 75%, 88.6%, and 85.5, respectively. For LR5 they were 74%, 95%, 80%, and 84.5, respectively. For ESGAR criteria with major and additional features, they were 88%, 75%, 84.3%, and 81.5, respectively. For ESGAR criteria only with major features they were 78%, 80%, 78.6%, and 79, respectively. AUC analysis revealed that overall diagnostic ability of LI-RADS was higher than ESGAR but the results did not show statistical significance.

conclusionsBoth LI-RADS and ESGAR guidelines presented high diagnostic ability in HCC diagnosis of MRI studies with hepatobiliary contrast agents. More complex LI-RADS criteria performed better than ESGAR guidelines and it may justify extra effort that needs to be put in the report. However, the results were not statistically different and the simplicity of the ESGAR guidelines should also be taken into consideration.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, HepatocellularLiver NeoplasmsMagnetic Resonance ImagingConsensus Statements as TopicContrast MediaFemaleHumansMalePractice Guidelines as TopicRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedContrast Media

Identifiers

PMID30105242
PMCPMC6076943

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.