Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31843596›Full record

ArticleClinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association2020

Prospective, Same-Day, Direct Comparison of Controlled Attenuation Parameter With the M vs the XL Probe in Patients With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Proton Density Fat Fraction as the Standard.

Cyrielle Caussy, Justine Brissot, Seema Singh, Shirin Bassirian, Carolyn Hernandez, Ricki Bettencourt, Emily Rizo, Lisa Richards, Claude B Sirlin, Rohit Loomba

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. The egyptian clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of metabolic associated fatty liver disease.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association
    Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. [Guidelines for the prevention and treatment of metabolic dysfunction-associated (non-alcoholic) fatty liver disease (Version 2024)].Zhonghua gan zang bing za zhi = Zhonghua ganzangbing zazhi = Chinese journal of hepatology · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Cyrielle CaussyNAFLD Research Center, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California; CarMen Laboratory, INSERM U1060, INRA U1397, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, National Institute of Applied Sciences of Lyon, Pierre-Bénite, France; Département Endocrinologie, Diabète et Nutrition, Hôpital Lyon Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pierre-Bénite, France.
Justine BrissotNAFLD Research Center, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Seema SinghNAFLD Research Center, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Shirin BassirianNAFLD Research Center, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Carolyn HernandezNAFLD Research Center, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Ricki BettencourtNAFLD Research Center, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Emily RizoNAFLD Research Center, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Lisa RichardsNAFLD Research Center, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Claude B SirlinLiver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Rohit LoombaNAFLD Research Center, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California; Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California; Division of Epidemiology, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California. Electronic address: roloomba@ucsd.edu.
University of California San Diego · USUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FR

Funding

UC San Diego Clinical and Translational Research InstituteUL1TR001442 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI FIRESTEIN, GARY S, HOGARTH, MICHAEL · 2015 to 2024
$88.3M
Yeast Genetics and Stress Response Genes-BiomedicalP42ES010337 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI TUKEY, ROBERT H · 2000 to 2022
$69.8M
QUS Technology for Diagnosis and Grading of Hepatic Steatosis in NAFLDR01DK106419 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI LOOMBA, ROHIT, SIRLIN, CLAUDE B · 2015 to 2019
$3.4M
GENETIC EPIDEMIOLOGY OF NONALCOHOLIC FATTY LIVER DISEASEK23DK090303 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI LOOMBA, ROHIT · 2011 to 2014
$721k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001442NIDDK NIH HHS K23 DK090303NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK106419NIEHS NIH HHS P42 ES010337
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND &

aimsControlled attenuation parameter (CAP) measurements using M probe have been reported to be lower than those of the XL-probe in detection of hepatic steatosis. However, there has been no direct comparison of CAP with the M vs the XL probe in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). We compared CAP with the M vs the XL probe for quantification of hepatic fat content, using magnetic resonance imaging proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) as the standard.

methodsWe performed a prospective study of 100 adults (mean body mass index [BMI], 30.6 ± 4.7 kg/m2) with and without NAFLD, assessed by CAP with the M probe and XL probe on the same day, at a single research center, from November 2017 through November 2018. We then measured the MRI-PDFF as the reference standard. Outcomes were presence of hepatic steatosis, defined as MRI-PDFF ≥ 5%, and detection of hepatic fat content ≥ 10%, defined as MRI-PDFF ≥ 10%. We performed area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) analyses to assess the diagnostic accuracy of CAP for each probe in detection of hepatic steatosis (MRI-PDFF ≥ 5%) and of hepatic fat content ≥ 10%.

resultsOf the study participants, 68% had an MRI-PDFF of 5% or more and 48% had an MRI-PDFF of 10% or more. The mean CAP measured by the M probe (310 ± 62 db/m) was significantly lower than by the X probe (317 ± 63 db/m) (P = .007). When M probe was used in participants with BMIs <30 kg/m

conclusionsIn an analysis of the same patients using CAP with the M probe and XL probe, with MRI-PDFF as the standard, we found that the M probe under-quantifies CAP values compared with the XL probe, independent of BMI. The type of probe should be considered when interpreting CAP data from patients with NAFLD.

Indexed as

Elasticity Imaging TechniquesNon-alcoholic Fatty Liver DiseaseAdultHumansLiverMagnetic Resonance ImagingProspective StudiesProtonsROC CurveProtonsDiagnosticFibroScanLiver FatNASH

Identifiers

PMID31843596
PMCPMC9683536
OpenAlexW2994810204

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.