ArticlePolish journal of radiology2021
Optimizing diagnostic imaging data using LI-RADS and the Likert scale in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.
Article in Polish journal of radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeThe study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS), which incorporates fixed criteria, and the Likert scale (LS), which mainly depends on an overall impression in liver lesion diagnosis. MATERIAL AND
methodsDiagnostic data of 110 hepatic nodules in 103 high-risk patients for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) were included. Data including diameter, arterial hyperenhancement, washout, and capsule were reviewed by 2 readers using LI-RADS and LS (range, score 1-5). Inter-reader agreement (IRA), intraclass agreement (ICA), and diagnostic performance were determined by Fleiss, Cohen's k, and logistic regression, respectively.
resultsThere were 53 triphasic enhanced computed tomography (CT) and 50 dynamic magnetic resonance (MR) examinations. Overall, IRA was excellent (k = 0.898). IRA was good for arterial hyperenhancement (k = 0.705), washout (k = 0.763), and capsule (k = 0.771) and excellent for diameter (k = 0.981) and tumour embolus (k = 0.927). Overall, ICA between LI-RADS and LS was fair 0.32; ICA was good for scores of 1 (k = 0.682), fair for scores of 2 (k = 0.36), moderate for scores of 5 (k = 0.52), but no agreement was found for scores of 3 (k = -0.059) and 4 (k = -0.022). LIRADS produced relatively high accuracy (87.3% vs. 80%), relatively low sensitivity (84.3% vs. 98%), and significantly higher specificity (89.83% vs. 64.4%) and positive likelihood ratio (+LR: 8.29 vs. 2.75) compared to LS approach.
conclusionsLI-RADS revealed higher diagnostic accuracy as compared to LS with statistical proof higher specificity and +LR showing its ability to foretell malignancy in high-risk patients. We recommend the practical application of the LI-RADS system in the detection and treatment response monitoring of patients with HCC.
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.