SynthesisEuropean radiology2021
Diagnostic accuracy of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System locoregional treatment response criteria: 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. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- LR-TR viable as an early imaging indicator of local recurrence after radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a longitudinal assessment using LI-RADS nonradiation TRA version 2024.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- 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 nonradiation treatment response assessment version 2024: diagnostic performance in HCC treated with transarterial chemoembolization.European radiology · 2026Article
- Article
- Accuracy of cross-sectional imaging in predicting tumor viability using the LI-RADS treatment response algorithm after image-guided percutaneous ablation with radiologic-pathologic explant correlation.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025Article
- 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
- Evaluation and Prediction of Treatment Response for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2023Article
- Clinical Significance of Liver MR Imaging.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2023Review
- [CT/MRI Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS): Standardization, Evidence, and Future Direction].Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThere is increasing adoption of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) treatment response (LR-TR) criteria. However, there is still a relative lack of evidence evaluating the performance of these criteria. We performed this study to assess the diagnostic accuracy of LI-RADS LR-TR criteria.
methodsA thorough search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies reporting diagnostic accuracy of LI-RADS LR-TR criteria was conducted through 30 June 2020. The meta-analytic summary of sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio of LI-RADS LR-TR criteria was computed using explant histopathology as the reference standard. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.
resultsFour studies were found eligible for meta-analysis. The total number of LR-TR observations was 462 (240 patients, 82.5% males). Different locoregional therapies (LRTs), including bland embolization, chemoembolization, radiofrequency ablation, and microwave ablation, had been used. The mean time interval between LRT and liver transplantation ranged from 181 to 219 days. There was a moderate to good inter-reader agreement for LR-TR criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of LR-TR criteria for viable disease were 62% (95% CI, 49-74%; I
conclusionsLI-RADS LR-TR criteria have acceptable diagnostic performance for the diagnosis of viable tumor after LRT. Well-designed prospective studies evaluating criteria of equivocal lesions and effect of different LRTs should be performed. KEY POINTS: • The pooled sensitivity and specificity of LI-RADS LR-TR criteria for the diagnosis of viable tumor were 62% and 87%, respectively. • The pooled diagnostic odds ratio and area under the curve were 9.83 and 0.80. • LR-TR criteria had a moderate to good inter-reader agreement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33786656What 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.