Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33786656›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2021

Diagnostic accuracy of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System locoregional treatment response criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Pankaj Gupta, Akash Bansal, Gaurav Chayan Das, Praveen Kumar-M, Sreedhara B Chaluvashetty, Harish Bhujade, Ajay Gulati, Naveen Kalra

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. LI-RADS CT/MRI Treatment Response Assessment Update in 2024.Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. 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 · 2023
    Article
  10. Clinical Significance of Liver MR Imaging.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2023
    Review
  11. Review
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

8 authors.

Pankaj GuptaDepartment of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, 160012, India. Pankajgupta959@gmail.com.
Akash BansalDepartment of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, 160012, India.
Gaurav Chayan DasDepartment of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, 160012, India.
Praveen Kumar-MDepartment of Pharmacology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, 160012, India.
Sreedhara B ChaluvashettyDepartment of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, 160012, India.
Harish BhujadeDepartment of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, 160012, India.
Ajay GulatiDepartment of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, 160012, India.
Naveen KalraDepartment of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, 160012, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Carcinoma, HepatocellularLiver NeoplasmsContrast MediaFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityContrast MediaDiagnostic imagingHepatocellular carcinomaResponse evaluation criteria in solid tumors

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.