ArticleUltrasonography (Seoul, Korea)2022
Assessment of the inter-platform reproducibility of ultrasound attenuation examination in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
Article in Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic performance of ultrasound attenuation imaging in detecting hepatic steatosis.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2026Pooled it
- Quantitative liver ultrasound: current status and challenges.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2026Article
- Evolving B-mode ultrasound-based techniques for assessing metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: Now and beyond.Liver research (Beijing, China) · 2026Review
- Ultrasound Attenuation Coefficient as a Biomarker of Hepatic Steatosis: State of the Art and Software Evaluation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Role of renal doppler in children with idiopathic nephrotic syndrome.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- Fat Content Quantification with US Attenuation Coefficient: Phantom Correlation with MRI Proton Density Fat Fraction.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Attenuation Based Quantitative Evaluation of Hepatic Steatosis Using US: Current Status and Future Perspective.Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2025Review
- Interplatform Agreement Between Liver Steatosis Analysis and Ultrasound-Guided Attenuation Parameter in the Evaluation of Hepatic Steatosis.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
- US Attenuation Coefficient for Liver Fat Quantification: A Need for Standardization.Radiology · 2024Article
- Reliability and stability of ultrasound-guided attenuation parameter in evaluating hepatic steatosis.Journal of ultrasound · 2024Article
- Advanced fibrosis leads to overestimation of steatosis with quantitative ultrasound in individuals without hepatic steatosis.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2024Article
- Inter-platform reproducibility of ultrasound-based fat fraction for evaluating hepatic steatosis in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
- Advances in diagnostic ultrasound techniques for assessing liver steatosis in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.iLIVER · 2023Review
- Development and validation of multivariable quantitative ultrasound for diagnosing hepatic steatosis.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Non-invasive evaluation of liver steatosis with imaging modalities: New techniques and applications.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Update on the Applications of Radiomics in Diagnosis, Staging, and Recurrence of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- How many times should we repeat measurements of the ultrasound-guided attenuation parameter for evaluating hepatic steatosis?Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 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
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to assess the inter-platform reproducibility of ultrasound attenuation examination in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).
methodsBetween March 2021 and April 2021, patients with clinically suspected or known NAFLD were prospectively enrolled; each patient underwent ultrasound attenuation examinations with three different platforms (Attenuation Imaging [ATI], Canon Medical System; Tissue Attenuation Imaging [TAI], Samsung Medison; and Ultrasound-Guided Attenuation Parameter [UGAP], GE Healthcare) on the same day. The mean attenuation coefficient (AC) values of the three platforms were compared using repeated-measures analysis of variance with the Bonferroni correction. To evaluate inter-platform reproducibility, the AC values obtained for each platform were compared using Bland-Altman analysis with the calculation of 95% limits of agreement (LOA), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and coefficients of variation (CVs).
resultsForty-six patients (23 men; mean age±standard deviation, 52.3±12.4 years) were enrolled. The mean AC values showed significant differences among the three platforms (0.75±0.12, 0.80±0.11, and 0.74±0.09 dB/cm/MHz for ATI, TAI, and UGAP, respectively; P<0.001). For inter-platform reproducibility, the 95% LOAs were -0.22 to 0.11 dB/cm/MHz between ATI and TAI, -0.17 to 0.18 dB/cm/MHz between ATI and UGAP, and -0.08 to 0.20 dB/cm/MHz between TAI and UGAP, respectively. The pairwise ICCs were 0.790-0.797 in terms of absolute agreement among the three platforms; the CVs were 8.23%-9.47%.
conclusionThe AC values obtained from different ultrasound attenuation examination platforms showed significant differences, with significant inter-platform variability. Therefore, the AC values measured using different ultrasound attenuation examination techniques should not be used interchangeably for longitudinal follow-up of patients with NAFLD.
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.