ArticleHepatology international2020
Retrospective comparison of EASL 2018 and LI-RADS 2018 for the noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma using magnetic resonance imaging.
Article in Hepatology international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 5 of them syntheses 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2018 category 5 for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis.European radiology · 2024Pooled it
- MRI-diagnosis of category LR-M observations in the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System v2018: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2022Pooled it
- Risk Stratification and Distribution of Hepatocellular Carcinomas in CEUS and CT/MRI LI-RADS: A Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Accuracy of Various Forms of Contrast-Enhanced MRI for Diagnosing Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Diagnostic performance of MRI for HCC according to contrast agent type: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Hepatology international · 2020Pooled it
- Hepatobiliary phase imaging in HCC: revisiting diagnostic algorithms and clinical utility of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI across international guidelines.Insights into imaging · 2026Review
- The Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI) as a Biomarker for Predicting Survival in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Treated with Transarterial Chemoembolization and Lenvatinib, With or Without Programmed Death-1(PD-1) Inhibitors.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Article
- Modified LR-5 criteria based on gadoxetic acid can improve the sensitivity in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma.World journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Evidence Supporting Diagnostic Value of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System for CT- and MR Imaging-based Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2024Review
- Threshold growth has a limited role in differentiating hepatocellular carcinoma from other focal hepatic lesions.BMC medical imaging · 2023Article
- Consensus report from the 10th Global Forum for Liver Magnetic Resonance Imaging: developments in HCC management.European radiology · 2023Review
- LI-RADS v2018: utilizing ancillary features on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI to improve the diagnostic performance of small hapatocellular carcinoma (≤ 20 mm).Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Article
- LI-RADS v2018: utilizing ancillary features on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI to improve the diagnostic performance of small hapatocellular carcinoma (≤ 20 mm).Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Article
- [CT/MRI Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS): Standardization, Evidence, and Future Direction].Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2023Review
- Imaging diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: Future directions with special emphasis on hepatobiliary magnetic resonance imaging and contrast-enhanced ultrasound.Clinical and molecular hepatology · 2022Review
- Gadoxetate-Enhanced MRI as a Diagnostic Tool in the Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Report from a 2020 Asia-Pacific Multidisciplinary Expert Meeting.Korean journal of radiology · 2022Review
- Role of LI-RADS Indeterminate Observations in the Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma after HCV Eradication with Direct-Acting Antivirals.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Should Threshold Growth Be Considered a Major Feature in the Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using LI-RADS?Korean journal of radiology · 2021Article
- Retrospective analysis of current guidelines for hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosis on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI in at-risk patients.European radiology · 2021Article
- Comparison of the current guidelines for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma using gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.European radiology · 2021Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe compared the diagnostic performances of the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) 2018 and Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) 2018 criteria on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in high-risk patients and evaluated the difference in diagnostic value between MRI with extracellular contrast agents (ECA-MRI) and MRI with hepatobiliary agents (HBA-MRI).
methodsThis study included 382 observations from 298 patients at high risk for HCC who underwent preoperative multiphasic contrast-enhanced MRI between January 2015 and December 2016. Two readers assessed all observations according to the EASL 2018 and LI-RADS 2018 criteria, and the per-observation diagnostic performances were compared.
resultsOn ECA-MRI, the LR-5 category of LI-RADS 2018 showed significantly higher sensitivity (78.9% vs. 71.5%, p = 0.005) and accuracy (81.7% vs. 75.0%, p = 0.003) for the diagnosis of HCC than the EASL 2018. On HBA-MRI, the diagnostic performances of the EASL 2018 and LR-5 of LI-RADS 2018 were not significantly different. When using EASL 2018, no statistically significant differences were observed in the diagnostic performances between ECA-MRI and HBA-MRI; however, when using the LR-5 of LI-RADS 2018, ECA-MRI had a higher sensitivity (78.9% vs. 67.5%, p = 0.029) than HBA-MRI.
conclusionsOn ECA-MRI, the LR-5 category of LI-RADS 2018 provides better sensitivity and accuracy than the EASL 2018 for diagnosing HCC. EASL 2018 provides comparable diagnostic performances between ECA-MRI and HBA-MRI, but the LR-5 category of LI-RADS 2018 provides better sensitivity on ECA-MRI than on HBA-MRI.
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.