Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33025153›Full record

ReviewAbdominal radiology (New York)2020

Liver fat quantification: where do we stand?

Jitka Starekova, Scott B Reeder

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Optimized motion-insensitive PDFF mapping of the liver.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Free-breathing, fat-corrected TMagnetic resonance in medicine · 2024
    Article
  15. Free-breathing MRI techniques for fat and RMagma (New York, N.Y.) · 2024
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jitka StarekovaDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, 600 Highland Ave, Madison, WI, 53792, USA. starekova@wisc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4285-3090
Scott B ReederDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, 600 Highland Ave, Madison, WI, 53792, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4728-8171
University of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

Technical Validation of MRI Biomarkers of Liver FatR01DK088925 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI REEDER, SCOTT B., SIRLIN, CLAUDE B · 2010 to 2021
$7.1M
Confounder-Corrected Quantitative MRI Biomarkers of HepaticR01DK100651 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI REEDER, SCOTT B. · 2014 to 2017
$2.7M
NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK088925NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK100651
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Excessive intracellular accumulation of triglycerides in the liver, or hepatic steatosis, is a highly prevalent condition affecting approximately one billion people worldwide. In the absence of secondary cause, the term nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is used. Hepatic steatosis may progress into nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, the more aggressive form of NAFLD, associated with hepatic complications such as fibrosis, liver failure and hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatic steatosis is associated with metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease and represents an independent risk factor for type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and malignancy. Percutaneous liver biopsy is the current reference standard for NAFLD assessment; however, it is an invasive procedure associated with complications and suffers from high sampling variability, impractical for clinical routine and drug efficiency studies. Therefore, noninvasive imaging methods are increasingly used for the diagnosis and monitoring of NAFLD. Among the methods quantifying liver fat, chemical-shift-encoded MRI (CSE-MRI)-based proton density fat-fraction (PDFF) has shown the most promise. MRI-PDFF is increasingly accepted as quantitative imaging biomarker of liver fat that is transforming daily clinical practice and influencing the development of new treatments for NAFLD. Furthermore, CT is an important imaging method for detection of incidental steatosis, and the practical advantages of quantitative ultrasound hold great promise for the future. Understanding the disease burden of NAFLD and the role of imaging may initiate important interventions aimed at avoiding the hepatic and extrahepatic complications of NAFLD. This article reviews clinical burden of NAFLD, and the role of noninvasive imaging techniques for quantification of liver fat.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver DiseaseHumansLiverMagnetic Resonance ImagingUltrasonographyHepatic steatosisLiver fat quantificationMagnetic resonance imagingNAFLDNASHNonalcoholic fatty liver diseaseNonalcoholic steatohepatitisNoninvasive quantitative biomarker

Identifiers

PMID33025153
PMCPMC7700836
OpenAlexW3092490262

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.