ReviewCureus2023
Diagnostic Values of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System in the Detection and Characterization of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- A Multi-phase CT Dataset for Automated Differential Diagnosis of Liver Tumors.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Assessment of LI-RADS efficacy in classification of hepatocellular carcinoma and benign liver nodules using DCE-MRI features and machine learning.European journal of radiology open · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review was undertaken to assess the diagnostic value of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) in patients with a high risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Google Scholar, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, PROQUEST, and Cochrane Library, as the international databases, were searched with appropriate keywords. Using the binomial distribution formula, the variance of all studies was calculated, and using Stata version 16 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX, USA), the obtained data were analyzed. Using a random-effect meta-analysis approach, we determined the pooled sensitivity and specificity. Utilizing the funnel plot and Begg's and Egger's tests, we assessed publication bias. The results exhibited pooled sensitivity and pooled specificity of 0.80% and 0.89%, respectively, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.76-0.84 and 0.87-0.92, respectively. The 2018 version of LI-RADS showed the greatest sensitivity (0.83%; 95% CI 0.79-0.87;
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.