SynthesisMedicine2018
Meta-analysis of intravoxel incoherent motion magnetic resonance imaging in differentiating focal lesions of the liver.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value in differentiating malignant from benign solid liver lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The British journal of radiology · 2021Pooled it
- Toward Optimized Intravoxel Incoherent Motion (IVIM) and Compartmental T2 Mapping in Abdominal Organs.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Towards Clinical Translation of Intravoxel Incoherent Motion MRI: Acquisition and Analysis Consensus Recommendations.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026Article
- Optimized acquisition for simultaneous intravoxel incoherent motion and RMagnetic resonance in medicine · 2025Article
- Dual-energy computed tomography-derived electron density in the differential diagnosis of focal hepatic lesions: initial experience.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Reproducibility of intravoxel incoherent motion quantification in the liver across field strengths and gradient hardware.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2024Article
- Comprehensive review of post-treatment imaging in head and neck cancers: from expected to unexpected and beyond.The British journal of radiology · 2024Review
- A correlative study between IVIM-DWI parameters and VEGF and MMPs expression in hepatocellular carcinoma.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Precision of region of interest-based tri-exponential intravoxel incoherent motion quantification and the role of the Intervoxel spatial distribution of flow velocities.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2022Article
- Application of intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging in hepatocellular carcinoma.World journal of gastroenterology · 2022Review
- b value and first-order motion moment optimized data acquisition for repeatable quantitative intravoxel incoherent motion DWI.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2022Article
- The Role of Non-Gaussian Models of Diffusion Weighted MRI in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging for focal liver lesions: bridging the gap between research and clinical practice.The British journal of radiology · 2021Review
- Progress of intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging in liver diseases.World journal of clinical cases · 2020Review
- Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging to differentiate hepatocellular carcinoma from intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Updates on Imaging of Liver Tumors.Current oncology reports · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAccurate detection and characterization of focal liver lesions, including differentiation between malignant and benign lesions, are particularly important. The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the parameters of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM), including apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), pure molecular diffusion coefficient (D), perfusion-related diffusion coefficient (D*), and perfusion fraction (f) in differentiating focal liver lesions.
methodsIVIM method employed for focal liver lesion and the quality assessment of diagnostic studies were evaluated. Standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. The heterogeneity was quantified with the I statistic.
resultsThe difference between groups was analyzed according to the I values from 6 different studies using fixed effects or random effects models. Significant differences in ADC (P < .001) and D (P < .001) were observed between benign and malignant lesions. Moreover, significant differences in ADC (P < .001), D (P < .001), and f (P = .01) were found between hemangioma and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In addition, no significant difference was observed between the metastases and HCC.
conclusionsD and ADC values were useful for the differentiation between benignity and malignancy; higher values of ADC, D, and f were observed in hemangioma compared to HCC. Nevertheless, IVIM did not result as the optimal approach for differentiation between the metastases and HCC.
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.