Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30899974›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2019

Diagnostic value of MRI-PDFF for hepatic steatosis in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a meta-analysis.

Jiulian Gu, Shousheng Liu, Shuixian Du, Qing Zhang, Jianhan Xiao, Quanjiang Dong, Yongning Xin

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 159 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
159citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

159 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Guideline
  7. Guideline
  8. Guideline
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Automated Deep Learning Detection of Hepatic Steatosis on Noncontrast Computed Tomography Scans and Discrepancy With Scan Reports.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

99 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors.

Jiulian GuDepartment of Infectious Disease, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao, 266011, China.
Shousheng LiuCentral Laboratories, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao, 266071, China.
Shuixian DuDepartment of Infectious Disease, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao, 266011, China.
Qing ZhangDepartment of Radiology, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao, 266071, China.
Jianhan XiaoMedical College of Qingdao University, Qingdao, 266071, China.
Quanjiang DongCentral Laboratories, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao, 266071, China.
Yongning XinDepartment of Infectious Disease, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao, 266011, China. xinyongning@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3692-7655

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 31770837Qingdao, Shinan District Science and Technology Development Project Fund 2016-3-016-YY
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo systematically review studies about the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) in the classification of hepatic steatosis grade in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).

methodsAreas under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC), sensitivity, specificity, overall diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), diagnostic score, positive likelihood ratio (+LR), and negative likelihood ratio (-LR) for MRI-PDFF in classification of steatosis grades 0 vs. 1-3, 0-1 vs. 2-3, and 0-2 vs. 3 were compared and analyzed.

resultsA total of 6 studies were included in this meta-analysis (n = 635). The summary AUROC values of MRI-PDFF for classifying steatosis grades 0 vs. 1-3, 0-1 vs. 2-3, and 0-2 vs. 3 were 0.98, 0.91, and 0.90, respectively. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of MRI-PDFF for classifying steatosis grades 0 vs. 1-3, 0-1 vs. 2-3, and 0-2 vs. 3 were 0.93 and 0.94, 0.74 and 0.90, and 0.74 and 0.87, respectively. Summary +LR and -LR of MRI-PDFF for classifying steatosis grades 0 vs. 1-3, 0-1 vs. 2-3, and 0-2 vs. 3 were 16.21 (95%CI, 4.72-55.67) and 0.08 (95%CI, 0.04-0.15), 7.19 (95%CI, 5.04-10.26) and 0.29 (95%CI, 0.22-0.38), and 5.89 (95%CI, 4.27-8.13) and 0.29 (95%CI, 0.21-0.41), respectively.

conclusionsOur meta-analysis suggests that MRI-PDFF has excellent diagnostic value for assessment of hepatic fat content and classification of histologic steatosis in patients with NAFLD. KEY POINTS: • MRI-PDFF has significant diagnostic value for hepatic steatosis in patients with NAFLD. • MRI-PDFF may be used to classify grade of hepatic steatosis with high sensitivity and specificity.

Indexed as

Adipose TissueFatty LiverHumansLiverMagnetic Resonance ImagingNon-alcoholic Fatty Liver DiseaseROC CurveMagnetic resonance imagingMeta-analysisNAFLD

Identifiers

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.