ArticleWorld journal of clinical cases2022
How to select the quantitative magnetic resonance technique for subjects with fatty liver: A systematic review.
Article in World journal of clinical cases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Manual Multi-ROI, Single-Location, and Volumetric Fat Fraction Measurements for Hepatic Steatosis Using MRI.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Spatial characterization of intrahepatic fat deposition across steatotic liver disease subcategories: a multicenter study.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Quantifying non-alcoholic fatty liver: liver-spleen CT ratio and fat concentration in dual-energy spectral CT : Accuracy comparison with proton density fat fraction MRI.Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Comparison of MR Spectroscopy, 2-Point Dixon, and Multi-Echo T2* Sequences in Assessing Hepatic Fat Fraction Across a Diverse Range of Body Mass Index (BMI) and Waist Circumference Ratio (WCR) Values.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly quantitative assessment of liver fat content is essential for patients with fatty liver disease. Mounting evidence has shown that magnetic resonance (MR) technique has high accuracy in the quantitative analysis of fatty liver, and is suitable for monitoring the therapeutic effect on fatty liver. However, many packaging methods and postprocessing functions have puzzled radiologists in clinical applications. Therefore, selecting a quantitative MR imaging technique for patients with fatty liver disease remains challenging.
aimTo provide information for the proper selection of commonly used quantitative MR techniques to quantify fatty liver.
methodsWe completed a systematic literature review of quantitative MR techniques for detecting fatty liver, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol. Studies were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, and their quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Studies criteria. The
resultsForty studies were included for spectroscopy, two-point Dixon imaging, and multiple-point Dixon imaging comparing liver biopsy to other imaging methods. The advantages and disadvantages of each of the three techniques and their clinical diagnostic performances were analyzed.
conclusionThe proton density fat fraction derived from multiple-point Dixon imaging is a noninvasive method for accurate quantitative measurement of hepatic fat content in the diagnosis and monitoring of fatty liver progression.
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.