ArticlePloS one2019
Value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for preoperative assessment of liver reserve function in patients with liver tumors.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for preoperative assessment of liver reserve function in patients with liver tumors. The indocyanine green (ICG) clearance tests and CEUS examinations of 45 noncirrhotic patients with liver tumors were performed prior to liver resection. Parameters time to peak (TtoPk), arrival time (Atm) as well as perfusion parameters A, k and A x k were generated from time-intensity curve (TIC) of CEUS. The correlation analyses of the ICG clearance per unit time (ICGK) and the retention rate at 15 min (ICGR15) with TtoPk, Atm, A, k and A x k were performed, and the diagnostic ability as well as optimal cut-off values of TtoPk and Atm for differentiating patients with ICGR15>10% from ICGR15<10% were analyzed. There were significant correlations of ICGK with TtoPk and Atm, and the correlation coefficients were 0.363 (p = 0.014) and -0.482 (p = 0.001), respectively. Significant correlations of ICGR15 with TtoPk and Atm were revealed, and the correlation coefficients were -0.416 (p = 0.004) and 0.303 (p = 0.043), respectively. No correlation of ICGK or ICGR15 with A, k and A x k was found in this study. There were significant differences in TtoPk and Atm between patients with ICGR15>10% and ICGR15<10% (p = 0.028 and p = 0.026, respectively). TtoPk and Atm both had good diagnostic abilities in diagnosing patients with ICGR15>10% verusus ICGR15<10% (AUROC = 0.711 and 0.721, respectively). For ICGR15>10% vs ICGR15, the optimal cut-off values of TtoPk and Atm were 13.307 s and 11.007 s, respectively, while the sensitivity and specificity were 75.0% and 72.7%, 60.6% and 75.0%, respectively. This study revealed that CEUS has the potential to be a new method to evaluate the liver reserve function of patients. With the optimal cut-off values of TtoPk and Atm, qualitative assessment of patients with ICGR15>10% could be more easily achieved by CEUS with good diagnostic abilities.
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.