Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37548928›Full record

ArticleHepatology (Baltimore, Md.)2024

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound liver imaging reporting and data system: clinical validation in a prospective multinational study in North America and Europe.

Andrej Lyshchik, Corinne E Wessner, Kristen Bradigan, John R Eisenbrey, Flemming Forsberg, Misung Yi, Scott W Keith, Yuko Kono, Stephanie R Wilson, Alexandra Medellin and 9 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Standardizing Safety Practices for Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in Radiology.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Benefits and drawbacks of radiofrequency ablationWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors at 13 institutions in 5 countries.

Andrej LyshchikDepartment of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Corinne E WessnerDepartment of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Kristen BradiganDepartment of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
John R EisenbreyDepartment of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Flemming ForsbergDepartment of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Misung YiDepartment of Pharmacology, Physiology, and Cancer Biology, Division of Biostatistics, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Scott W KeithDepartment of Pharmacology, Physiology, and Cancer Biology, Division of Biostatistics, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Yuko KonoUniversity of California, San Diego, San Diego, California, USA.
Stephanie R WilsonUniversity of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Alexandra MedellinUniversity of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Shuchi K RodgersDepartment of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Virginia PlanzVanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Aya KamayaStanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Lisa FinchSwedish Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.
David T FetzerUT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Annalisa BerzigottiDepartment of Visceral Surgery and Medicine, Bern, University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern Switzerland.
Paul S SidhuDepartment of Imaging Sciences, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.
Fabio PiscagliaDivision of Internal Medicine, Hepatobiliary and Immunoallergic Diseases, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Italy.
CEUS LI-RADS Trial Group
Thomas Jefferson University Hospital · USUniversity of Calgary · CAAmerican Heart Association · USAzienda USL di Bologna · ITKing's College London · GBSidney Kimmel Cancer Center · USSouthwestern Medical Center · USStanford University · USSwedish Medical Center · USThomas Jefferson University · USUniversity of Bern · CHUniversity of California San Diego · USVanderbilt University · US

Funding

CONTRAST-ENHANCED ULTRASOUND EVALUATION OF FOCAL LIVER LESIONS IN PATIENTS WITH CIRRHOSIS OR OTHER RISK FACTORS FOR DEVELOPING HCCR01CA215520 · NCI · THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY · PI LYSHCHIK, ANDREJ · 2017 to 2020
$2.4M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA215520
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsThe objective of this study is to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the American College of Radiology Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System LR-5 characterization for HCC diagnosis in North American or European patients. APPROACH AND

resultsA prospective multinational cohort study was performed from January 2018 through November 2022 at 11 academic and nonacademic centers in North America and Europe. Patients at risk for HCC with at least 1 liver observation not previously treated, identified on ultrasound (US), or multiphase CT or MRI performed as a part of standard clinical care were eligible for the study. All participants were examined with CEUS of the liver within 4 weeks of CT/MRI or tissue diagnosis to characterize up to 2 liver nodules per participant using ACR CEUS Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System. Definite HCC diagnosis on the initial CT/MRI, imaging follow-up, or histology for CT/MRI-indeterminate nodules were used as reference standards. A total of 545 nodules had confirmed reference standards in 480 patients, 73.8% were HCC, 5.5% were other malignancies, and 20.7% were nonmalignant. The specificity of CEUS LR-5 for HCC was 95.1% (95% CI 90.1%-97.7%), sensitivity 62.9% (95% CI 57.9%-67.7%), positive predictive value 97.3% (95% CI 94.5%-98.7%), and negative predictive value 47.7% (95% CI 41.7%-53.8%). In addition, benign CEUS characterization (LR-1 or LR-2) had 100% specificity and 100% positive predictive value for nonmalignant liver nodules.

conclusionsCEUS Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System provides an accurate categorization of liver nodules in participants at risk for HCC.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, HepatocellularLiver NeoplasmsCohort StudiesContrast MediaEuropeHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingNorth AmericaProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityContrast Media

Identifiers

PMID37548928
PMCPMC11810132
OpenAlexW4385620444

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.