SynthesisAbdominal radiology (New York)2021
Inter-reader reliability of contrast-enhanced ultrasound Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo systematically determine the inter-reader reliability of the contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS), with emphasis on its major features for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and LR-M (LI-RADS category M) features for non-HCC malignancy.
methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from January 2016 to March 2021 to identify original articles reporting the inter-reader reliability of CEUS LI-RADS. Meta-analytic pooled kappa values (κ) were calculated for major features [nonrim arterial-phase hyperenhancement (APHE), mild and late washout], LR-M features (rim APHE, early washout), and LI-RADS categorization using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model. Meta-regression analysis was performed to explore any causes of study heterogeneity.
resultsTwelve studies with a total of 2862 lesions were included. The meta-analytic pooled κ of nonrim APHE, mild and late washout, rim APHE, early washout, and LI-RADS categorization were 0.73 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.67 - 0.79], 0.69 (95% CI, 0.54-0.84), 0.54 (95% CI, 0.37-0.71), 0.62 (95% CI, 0.45-0.79), and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.64-0.87), respectively. Compared with the major features, LR-M features had a lower meta-analytic pooled κ. Substantial study heterogeneity was noted in the LI-RADS categorization, and lesion size (p = 0.03) and the homogeneity in reader experience (p = 0.03) were significantly associated with study heterogeneity.
conclusionsCEUS LI-RADS showed substantial inter-reader reliability for major features and LI-RADS categorization, but relatively lower reliability was found for LR-M features. In our opinion, the definitions of imaging features require further refinement to improve the inter-reader reliability of CEUS LI-RADS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34156509What 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.