ArticleBMC medical imaging2022
Identification of the origin of tumor in vein: comparison between CEUS LI-RADS v2017 and v2016 for patients at high risk.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2022. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the diagnostic performance of the Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) Liver Imaging Report and Data System (LI-RADS) v2016 and v2017 in identifying the origin of tumor in vein (TIV).
methodsFrom April 2014 to December 2018, focal liver lesions (FLLs) accompanied by TIV formation in patients at high risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) were enrolled. Histologic evaluation or composite imaging reference standard were served as the reference standard. Each case was categorized according to the CEUS LI-RADS v2016 and v2017, respectively. Diagnostic performance of CEUS LI-RADS v2016 and v2017 in identifying the originated tumor of TIV was validated via sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value.
resultsA total of 273 FLLs with TIV were analyzed finally, including 266 HCCs and 7 non-HCCs. In v2016, when adopting all TIV as LR-5V, the accuracy and PPV in identifying the originated tumor were both 97.4%. In v2017, when assigning TIV according to contiguous FLLs CEUS LI-RADS category, the accuracy and PPV were 61.9% and 99.4% in subclass of LR-5 as the diagnostic criteria of HCC, and 64.1% and 99.4% in subclass of LR-4/5 as the criteria of HCC diagnosis. There were significant differences in diagnostic accuracy between CEUS LI-RADS v2016 and v2017 in identifying the originated tumor of TIV (p < 0.001).
conclusionsCEUS LI-RADS v2016 could be better than v2017 in identifying the originated tumor of TIV.
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.