ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Interreader Reliability of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System Treatment Response: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The 2024 LI-RADS treatment response update: practical reporting after non-radiation and radiation locoregional therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma.Insights into imaging · 2026Review
- LI-RADS CT/MRI Treatment Response Assessment Update in 2024.Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2025Review
- CT/MRI LI-RADS 2024 Update: Treatment Response Assessment.Radiology · 2024Review
- Updates on LI-RADS Treatment Response Criteria for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Focusing on MRI.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2023Review
- Clinical Significance of Liver MR Imaging.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2023Review
- Inter-observer agreement using the LI-RADS version 2018 CT treatment response algorithm in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with conventional transarterial chemoembolization.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFor a proper management strategy in patients with locoregionally treated hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), it is essential that the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) treatment response algorithm (LR-TR) has high interreader reliability. We aimed to systematically evaluate the interreader reliability of LR-TR and sources of any study heterogeneity.
methodsOriginal studies reporting the interreader reliability of LR-TR were identified in MEDLINE and EMBASE up to 20 September 2020. The pooled kappa coefficient (κ) was calculated using the DerSimonian-Laird random effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed according to imaging modality (magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT)). Meta-regression analyses were performed to explore study heterogeneity.
resultsEight studies with 851 HCCs were finally included. Pooled κ was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.58-0.82) for CT/MRI LR-TR, and those of MRI and CT were 0.71 (95% CI, 0.53-0.89) and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.65-0.78), respectively. Study design (
conclusionLR-TR showed substantial interreader reliability regardless of the imaging modality. Because of substantial study heterogeneity, which was significantly associated with study design and type of treatment, published values for the interreader reliability of LR-TR should be interpreted with care.
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.