ArticleEuropean radiology2021
Contrast-enhanced ultrasound LI-RADS 2017: comparison with CT/MRI LI-RADS.
Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance of CEUS LI-RADS v2017 major feature combinations: individual patient data meta-analysis.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Pooled it
- Is concurrent LR-5 associated with a higher rate of hepatocellular carcinoma in LR-3 or LR-4 observations? An individual participant data meta-analysis.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Pooled it
- Performance of LI-RADS category 5 vs combined categories 4 and 5: a systemic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2024Pooled it
- Risk Stratification and Distribution of Hepatocellular Carcinomas in CEUS and CT/MRI LI-RADS: A Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Incorporating new criteria can improve the ability of CEUS LI-RADS to differentiate HCC from non-HCC malignancies.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Arterial-Washout Temporal Profiling in CEUS LI-RADS: A Diagnostic Algorithm for Reducing Hepatocellular Carcinoma Misclassification.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2026Article
- The role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the radiological classification of liver observations identified by CT and MRI.La Radiologia medica · 2025Observational
- Combination of CT/MRI LI-RADS With Second-Line Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Using Sulfur Hexafluoride or Perfluorobutane for Diagnosing Hepatocellular Carcinoma in High-Risk Patients.Korean journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Unraveling distinctions between contrast-enhanced ultrasound and CT/MRI for liver mass diagnosis.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2025Article
- Article
- Correlation between CEUS LI-RADS categorization of HCC < 20 mm and clinic-pathological features.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
- The comparison of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI LI-RADS for nodules ≤2 cm in patients at high risk for HCC: a prospective study.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Differences between CEUS LI-RADS and CECT LI-RADS in the diagnosis of focal liver lesions in patients at risk for HCC.BMC medical imaging · 2023Article
- Compared with CT/MRI LI-RADS, whether CEUS LI-RADS is worth popularizing in diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma?-a direct head-to-head meta-analysis.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- LI-RADS LR-5 on contrast-enhanced ultrasonography has satisfactory diagnostic specificity for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Imaging diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: Future directions with special emphasis on hepatobiliary magnetic resonance imaging and contrast-enhanced ultrasound.Clinical and molecular hepatology · 2022Review
- CEUS and CT/MRI LI-RADS in Association With Serum Biomarkers for Differentiation of Combined Hepatocellular-Cholangiocarcinoma From Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- CT/MRI LI-RADS version 2018 versus CEUS LI-RADS version 2017 in the diagnosis of primary hepatic nodules in patients with high-risk hepatocellular carcinoma.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
- A novel mono-modality fusion imaging method based on three-dimensional contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the evaluation of ablation margins after microwave ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the classification based on contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) with that of contrast-enhanced CT and MRI (CECT/MRI) LI-RADS for liver nodules in patients at high risk of hepatocellular carcinoma.
methodsTwo hundred thirty-nine patients with 273 nodules were enrolled in this retrospective study. Each nodule was categorized according to the CEUS LI-RADS version 2017 and CECT/MRI LI-RADS version 2017. The diagnostic performance of CEUS and CECT/MRI was compared. The reference standard was histopathology diagnosis. Inter-modality agreement was assessed with Cohen's kappa.
resultsThe inter-modality agreement for CEUS LI-RADS and CECT/MRI LI-RADS was fair with a kappa value of 0.319 (p < 0.001). The positive predictive values (PPVs) of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in LR-5, LR-4, and LR-3 were 98.3%, 60.0%, and 25.0% in CEUS, and 95.9%, 65.7%, and 48.1% in CECT/MRI, respectively. The sensitivities and specificities of LR-5 for diagnosing HCC were 75.6% and 93.8% in CEUS, and 83.6% and 83.3% in CECT/MRI, respectively. The positive predictive values of non-HCC malignancy in CEUS LR-M and CECT/MRI LR-M were 33.9% and 93.3%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for diagnosing non-HCC malignancy were 90.9%, 84.5%, and 85.0% in CEUS LR-M and 63.6%, 99.6%, and 96.7% in CECT/MRI LR-M, respectively.
conclusionsThe inter-modality agreement of the LI-RADS category between CEUS and CECT/MRI is fair. The positive predictive values of HCCs in LR-5 of the CEUS and CECT/MRI LI-RADS are comparable. CECT/MRI LR-M has better diagnostic performance for non-HCC malignancy than CEUS LR-M. KEY POINTS: • The inter-modality agreement for the final LI-RADS category between CEUS and CECT/MRI is fair. • The LR-5 of CEUS and CECT/MRI LI-RADS corresponds to comparable positive predictive values (PPVs) of HCC. For LR-3 and LR-4 nodules categorized by CECT/MRI, CEUS examination should be performed, at least if they can be detected on plain ultrasound. • CECT/MRI LR-M has better diagnostic performance for non-HCC malignancy than CEUS LR-M. For LR-M nodules categorized by CEUS, re-evaluation by CECT/MRI is necessary.
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.