ArticleEuropean radiology2019
Evaluation of liver parenchyma stiffness in patients with liver tumours: optimal strategy for shear wave elastography.
Article in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Role of multiparametric US in the preoperative assessment of hepatic parenchyma in patients with liver tumors.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Article
- Rethinking Liver Fibrosis Staging in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma: New Insights from a Large Two-Center Cohort Study.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the methodology of non-invasive test for evaluation of liver stiffness (LS) with tumours using two-dimensional (2D) shear wave elastography (SWE).
methodsOne hundred and twenty-seven patients with liver tumours underwent 2D-SWE before surgery to measure liver and spleen stiffness (SS). Two-dimensional SWE values were obtained in the liver at 0-1 cm, 1-2 cm and >2 cm from the tumour edge (PLS-1, PLS-2 and RLS, respectively). The influence of tumour-associated factors was evaluated. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for each value was analysed to diagnose cirrhosis.
resultsPLS-1 was higher than PLS-2, which was even higher than RLS (p < 0.001). The AUCs of PLS-1, PLS-2, RLS and SS for diagnosing cirrhosis were 0.760, 0.833, 0.940 and 0.676, with the specificity of 75.7%, 67.6%, 90.3% and 77.4%, respectively. Tumour sizes, locations or types showed no apparent influence on 2D-SWE values except for RLS, which was higher in patients with primary hepatic carcinomas (p < 0.05).
conclusionsLS with tumours is best measured at >2 cm away from the tumour edge. SS measurement could be used as an alternative to LS measurement in the event of no available liver for detection. KEY POINTS: • Tumour-associated factors impact background liver stiffness assessment. • Background liver stiffness is best measured at >2 cm from tumour edge. • Spleen stiffness can be an alternative to assess background liver stiffness.
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.