ArticleKorean journal of radiology2019
Intraindividual Comparison between Gadoxetate-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Dynamic Computed Tomography for Characterizing Focal Hepatic Lesions: A Multicenter, Multireader Study.
Article in Korean journal of radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 4 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance of LI-RADS category 5 vs combined categories 4 and 5: a systemic review and 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
- Computed tomography for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Prognostic Implications of CT- and MRI-Based LI-RADS Category M Features in Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: An Intraindividual Comparison.Korean journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic performance of dual-layer spectral detector CT derived from the arterial and portal venous phases in small HCC (≤ 30 mm): comparison with multiphase CT and MRI.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Review
- Histogram analysis of continuous-time random walk and restrictive spectrum imaging for identifying hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Review
- A Narrative Review on LI-RADS Algorithm in Liver Tumors: Prospects and Pitfalls.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Combined Hepatocellular-Cholangiocarcinoma: What the Multidisciplinary Team Should Know.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Diagnostic evaluation and ablation treatments assessment in hepatocellular carcinoma.Infectious agents and cancer · 2021Review
- Clinical Application of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System for Characterizing Liver Neoplasms: A Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Current status of image-based surveillance in hepatocellular carcinoma.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2021Article
- Diagnosis of Non-Hepatocellular Carcinoma Malignancies in Patients With Risks for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: CEUS LI-RADS Versus CT/MRI LI-RADS.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Up-to-Date Role of CT/MRI LI-RADS in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2021Review
- Characteristics of Recent Articles Published in the Korean Journal of Radiology Based on the Citation Frequency.Korean journal of radiology · 2020Article
- Performance of LI-RADS version 2018 CT treatment response algorithm in tumor response evaluation and survival prediction of patients with single hepatocellular carcinoma after radiofrequency ablation.Annals of translational medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the diagnostic accuracy of dynamic computed tomography (CT) and gadoxetate-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for characterization of hepatic lesions by using the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) in a multicenter, off-site evaluation. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this retrospective multicenter study, we evaluated 231 hepatic lesions (114 hepatocellular carcinomas [HCCs], 58 non-HCC malignancies, and 59 benign lesions) confirmed histologically in 217 patients with chronic liver disease who underwent both gadoxetate-enhanced MRI and dynamic CT at one of five tertiary hospitals. Four radiologists at different institutes independently reviewed all MR images first and the CT images 4 weeks later. They evaluated the major and ancillary imaging features and categorized each hepatic lesion according to the LI-RADS v2014. Diagnostic performance was calculated and compared using generalized estimating equations.
resultsMRI showed higher sensitivity and accuracy than CT for diagnosing hepatic malignancies; the pooled sensitivities, specificities, and accuracies for categorizing LR-5/5V/M were 59.0% vs. 72.4% (CT vs. MRI;
conclusionGadoxetate-enhanced MRI showed superior accuracy for categorizing LR-5/5V/M in hepatic malignancies in comparison with dynamic CT. Both modalities had comparable accuracies for distinguishing other malignancies from HCC.
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.