ArticleFrontiers in medicine2021
Test-Retest Reliability of the Assessment of Fatty Liver Disease Using Low-Dose Computed Tomography in Cardiac Patients.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing ultrasound-derived fat fraction and CT for diagnosing hepatic steatosis: an MRI-PDFF reference study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Cardiometabolic disorders affect myocardial [EJNMMI research · 2025Article
- Fatty Liver Grading Using Computed Tomography Hounsfield Unit Values and Correlating With Ultrasonography Grading.Cureus · 2025Article
- Automated hepatic steatosis assessment on dual-energy CT-derived virtual non-contrast images through fully-automated 3D organ segmentation.La Radiologia medica · 2024Article
- Decreased liver-to-spleen ratio in low-dose computed tomography as a biomarker of fatty liver disease reflects risk for myocardial ischaemia.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a common disorder that is associated with the risk of cardiovascular diseases. Therefore, its prevalence is high in patients with coronary artery disease. In myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), low-dose computed tomography (CT) scans are used for attenuation correction in separate stress and rest studies. Here, the test-retest reliability of CT-based quantification of NAFLD was evaluated using these two CT scans. The study population consisted of 261 patients (156 men and 105 women, age 66 ± 10 years). Quantification of liver fat content was based on the radiodensity of the liver in Hounsfield units as well as in relation to corresponding values of the spleen. NAFLD was observed in 47 subjects (18%). CT quantification has good test-retest reliability in assessing NAFLD, with concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) ranging from 0.512 to 0.923, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) ranging from 0.513 to 0.923, and coefficient of variation ranging from 3.1 to 7.0%. Regarding the liver to spleen ratio, CCC for non-NAFLD patients and NAFLD patients was 0.552 and 0.911, respectively. For non-NAFLD patients ICC was 0.553 and NAFLD patients it was 0.913. The coefficient of variation for non-NAFLD and NAFLD patients was 4.9% and 3.1%, respectively. Our results suggest that low-dose CT is a feasible and well repeatable method but amount of liver fat contributes to repeatability. In NAFLD patients CCC and ICC were high reflecting excellent reliability, whereas in non-NAFLD patients test-retest reliability was moderate. Assessment of liver fat content can be used as additional information in studies where a CT scan has been done for other medical reasons, such as for low-dose attenuation correction CT along with MPI.
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.