SynthesisAbdominal radiology (New York)2023
Inter-reader reliability of functional liver imaging score derived from gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Functional liver imaging score in chronic liver disease: association with hepatocellular function and disease severity markers.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Incorporating parenchymal heterogeneity into FLIS to improve MRI-based liver function assessment.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Functional liver imaging score derived from hepatobiliary-specific contrast-enhanced MRI: a study on agreement and correlation.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Liver Functions in Patients with Chronic Liver Disease and Liver Cirrhosis: Correlation of FLIS and LKER with PALBI Grade and APRI.Current medical imaging · 2025Article
- Low functional liver imaging score is associated with poor prognosis following hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to systematically determine the inter-reader reliability of the functional liver imaging score (FLIS) and explore the factors affecting it.
methodsOriginal articles reporting the inter-reader reliability of FLIS derived from gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were systematically searched in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from January 2013 to June 2022. Data synthesis was performed to calculate the meta-analytic pooled estimates of the FLIS and its three subcategories, including enhancement quality score (EnQS), excretion quality score (ExQS), and portal vein sign quality score (PVsQS) using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model. To explore any cause of study heterogeneity, we conducted a meta-regression analysis.
resultsSix studies with data from 1419 patients were included. The meta-analytic pooled inter-reader reliability of FLIS was 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-0.98). That of the three FLIS subcategories were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.85-1.00), 0.95 (95% CI, 0.91-1.00), and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.81-0.99) for EnQS, ExQS, and PVsQS, respectively. The pooled FLIS data was moderately heterogenous, but heterogeneity was not associated with the study methodology, MRI-related factors, and reader experience.
conclusionThe FLIS and its three subcategories showed almost perfect inter-reader reliability. Therefore, FLIS may be a reliable imaging parameter that reflects liver function and outcomes in patients with chronic liver disease. Further studies should be conducted to confirm any factors affecting the inter-reader reliability of FLIS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36576517What 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.