ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2023
Compared with CT/MRI LI-RADS, whether CEUS LI-RADS is worth popularizing in diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma?-a direct head-to-head meta-analysis.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Systematic evaluation and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound contrast in predicting the efficacy of systemic therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in contrast enhanced ultrasound: A new era for liver lesion assessment.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- The role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the radiological classification of liver observations identified by CT and MRI.La Radiologia medica · 2025Observational
- The correlation between contrast-enhanced ultrasound Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System classification and differentiation grades of combined hepatocellular carcinoma-cholangiocarcinoma.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Nonradiation Treatment Response Assessment LI-RADS v2024 Using Data From a Multi-Center Transarterial Chemoembolization Study.Academic radiology · 2024Observational
- The efficacy of modified contrast-enhanced ultrasound Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (CEUS LI-RADS) using Sonazoid in diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- ChatGPT in radiology structured reporting: analysis of ChatGPT-3.5 Turbo and GPT-4 in reducing word count and recalling findings.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Until now, there has been no systematic review or meta-analysis of direct head-to-head studies that compare two liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS) algorithms, contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) LI-RADS and contrast-enhanced computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (CT/MRI) LI-RADS, for the diagnostic efficacy of hepatocellular carcinoma. The purpose of this study was to identify and head-to-head compare the diagnostic performance of both LI-RADS algorithms for hepatocellular carcinoma. Methods: We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from the inception of each database to April 26, 2022, to find the comparative study of both LI-RADS algorithms for hepatocellular carcinoma at risk of patients who underwent both LI-RADS algorithms. Eligibility criteria included only studies published in English, full reports published, both retrospective and prospective studies. Liver histology or imaging follow-up results served as the reference standard. We analyzed the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and summary receiver operating characteristic curve to determine summary estimates. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies was utilized to assess the methodological quality. Results: In 5 included studies (831 patients, 877 lesions), the pooled sensitivity and pooled specificity of CEUS LR-5 were 0.79, 0.81, and 0.78, 0.79 in CT/MRI LR-5, respectively. The pooled sensitivity and pooled specificity of CEUS LR-4/5 were 0.86, 0.70, and 0.93, 0.59 in CT/MRI LR-4/5, respectively. There was no obvious difference between the two LI-RADS algorithms for hepatocellular carcinoma, and there was no significant statistical difference between two LR-M algorithms for non-hepatocellular carcinoma malignancies. Conclusions: The results of our analysis demonstrated that CEUS LI-RADS has satisfactory diagnostic performance similar to that of CT/MRI LI-RADS, which provides a theoretical basis for the popularization of CEUS LI-RADS for diagnosing HCC. This work was supported by Sichuan Science and Technology Program (No. 2020YFS0211). We registered this study on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO, CRD42022328107) before the search step.
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.