Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31712963›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2020

Diagnostic performance of tomoelastography of the liver and spleen for staging hepatic fibrosis.

Rolf Reiter, Heiko Tzschätzsch, Florian Schwahofer, Matthias Haas, Christian Bayerl, Marion Muche, Dieter Klatt, Shreyan Majumdar, Meltem Uyanik, Bernd Hamm and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Feasibility ofQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. On the relationship between metabolic capacities andFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

13 authors.

Rolf ReiterDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany. rolf.reiter@charite.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9741-6736
Heiko TzschätzschDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Florian SchwahoferDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Matthias HaasDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Christian BayerlDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Marion MucheMedical Department, Division of Gastroenterology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Dieter KlattRichard and Loan Hill Department of Bioengineering, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, United States.
Shreyan MajumdarRichard and Loan Hill Department of Bioengineering, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, United States.
Meltem UyanikRichard and Loan Hill Department of Bioengineering, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, United States.
Bernd HammDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Jürgen BraunDepartment of Medical Informatics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Ingolf SackDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Patrick AsbachDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) RE 4161/1-1Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) RE 4161/1-2Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) SFB 1340/1 Matrix in Vision
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine the diagnostic performance, cut-off values, and optimal drive frequency range for staging hepatic fibrosis using tomoelastography by multifrequency MR elastography of the liver and spleen.

methodsThis prospective study consecutively enrolled a total of 61 subjects between June 2014 and April 2017: 45 patients with chronic liver disease and proven stage of fibrosis and 16 healthy volunteers. Tomoelastography was performed at 1.5 T using six drive frequencies from 35 to 60 Hz. Cut-off values and AUC were calculated. Shear wave speed (in m/s) of the liver and spleen was assessed separately and in combination as a surrogate of stiffness.

resultsFor compound multifrequency processing of the liver, cut-off and AUC values by fibrosis stage were as follows: F1, 1.52 m/s and 0.89; F2, 1.55 m/s and 0.94; F3, 1.67 m/s and 0.98; and F4, 1.72 m/s and 0.98. Diagnostic performance of the best single drive frequencies (45 Hz, 55 Hz, 60 Hz) was similar (mean AUC = 0.95, respectively). Combined analysis of the liver and spleen slightly improved performance at 60 Hz in F4 patients (mean AUC = 0.97 vs. 0.95, p = 0.03). Full-field-of-view elastograms displayed not only the liver and spleen but also small anatomical structures including the pancreas and major vessels.

conclusionTomoelastography provides full-field-of-view elastograms with unprecedented detail resolution and excellent diagnostic accuracy for staging hepatic fibrosis. Our analysis of single-frequency tomoelastography suggests that scan time can be further reduced in future studies, making tomoelastography easier to implement in clinical routine. KEY POINTS: • Tomoelastography provides full-field-of-view elastograms of the abdomen with unprecedented detail resolution and excellent diagnostic accuracy for staging hepatic fibrosis. • Diagnostic performance of single-frequency tomoelastography at higher frequencies (45 Hz, 55 Hz, 60 Hz) and compound multifrequency processing are equivalent for staging hepatic fibrosis. • Combined assessment of hepatic and splenic stiffness slightly improves diagnostic performance for staging hepatic fibrosis.

Indexed as

AbdomenAdultElasticity Imaging TechniquesFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansLiverLiver CirrhosisMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSpleenElasticity imaging techniquesFibrosisLiver cirrhosisMagnetic resonance imagingSpleen

Identifiers

PMID31712963
PMCPMC7033143

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.