SynthesisEuropean radiology2021
Inter-reader reliability of CT Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System according to imaging analysis methodology: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Performance of LI-RADS category 5 vs combined categories 4 and 5: a systemic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2024Pooled it
- Review
- Article
- Value of enhancing capsule for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma on MRI: implications for simplifying LI-RADS.European radiology · 2026Article
- Re-assessing the diagnostic value of the enhancing capsule in hepatocellular carcinoma imaging.Journal of liver cancer · 2024Article
- Systematic training of LI-RADS CT v2018 improves interobserver agreements and performances in LR categorization for focal liver lesions.Japanese journal of radiology · 2024Article
- Can absolute arterial phase hyperenhancement improve sensitivity of detection of hepatocellular carcinoma in indeterminate nodules on CT?European radiology · 2024Article
- Automated CT LI-RADS v2018 scoring of liver observations using machine learning: A multivendor, multicentre retrospective study.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2023Article
- The role of enhancing capsule and modified capsule appearances in LI-RADS for diagnosing HCC ≤ 3.0 cm on gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI.European radiology · 2023Article
- Improving detection performance of hepatocellular carcinoma and interobserver agreement for liver imaging reporting and data system on CT using deep learning reconstruction.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Article
- What proportion of LI-RADS 5 observations reported in clinical practice do not meet LI-RADS 5 criteria?European radiology · 2022Article
- Trends in Incidence and Prognostic Factors of Two Subtypes of Primary Liver Cancers: A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Based Population Study.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo establish inter-reader reliability of CT Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) and explore factors that affect it.
methodsMEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched from January 2014 to March 2020 to identify original articles reporting the inter-reader reliability of CT LI-RADS. The imaging analysis methodology of each study was identified, and pooled intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) or kappa values (κ) were calculated for lesion size, major features (arterial-phase hyperenhancement [APHE], nonperipheral washout [WO], and enhancing capsule [EC]), and LI-RADS categorization (LR) using random-effects models. Subgroup analyses of pooled κ were performed for the number of readers, average reader experience, differences in reader experience, and LI-RADS version.
resultsIn the 12 included studies, the pooled ICC or κ of lesion size, APHE, WO, EC, and LR were 0.99 (0.96-1.00), 0.69 (0.58-0.81), 0.67 (0.53-0.82), 0.65 (0.54-0.76), and 0.70 (0.59-0.82), respectively. The experience and number of readers varied: studies using readers with ≥ 10 years of experience showed significantly higher κ for LR (0.82 vs. 0.45, p = 0.01) than those with < 10 years of reader experience. Studies with multiple readers including inexperienced readers showed significantly lower κ for APHE (0.55 vs. 0.76, p = 0.04) and LR (0.45 vs. 0.79, p = 0.02) than those with all experienced readers.
conclusionsCT LI-RADS showed substantial inter-reader reliability for major features and LR. Inter-reader reliability differed significantly according to average reader experience and differences in reader experience. Reported results for inter-reader reliability of CT LI-RADS should be understood with consideration of the imaging analysis methodology. KEY POINTS: • The CT Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) provides substantial inter-reader reliability for three major features and category assignment. • The imaging analysis methodology varied across studies. • The inter-reader reliability of CT LI-RADS differed significantly according to the average reader experience and the difference in reader experience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33713172What 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.