ArticleBMC medical imaging2023
Differences between CEUS LI-RADS and CECT LI-RADS in the diagnosis of focal liver lesions in patients at risk for HCC.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Incorporating new criteria can improve the ability of CEUS LI-RADS to differentiate HCC from non-HCC malignancies.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the inter-modality consistency and diagnostic performances of the contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) LI-RADS in patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), so as to help clinicians to select a more appropriate modality to follow the focal liver lesions (FLLs).
methodsThis retrospective study included untreated 277 FLLs from 247 patients who underwent both CEUS and CECT within 1 month. The ultrasound contrast medium used was SonoVue. FLL categories were independently assigned by two ultrasound physicians and two radiologists using CEUS LI-RADS v2017 and CECT LI-RADS v2018, respectively. The diagnostic performances of CEUS and CECT LI-RADS were evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value. Cohen's Kappa was employed to evaluate the concordance of the LI-RADS category.
resultsThe inter-modality consistency for CEUS and CECT LI-RADS was 0.31 (p < 0.001). HCC was more frequently observed in CECT LR-3 and LR-4 hepatic lesions than in CEUS (7.3% vs. 19.5%, p < 0.001). The specificity and PPV of CEUS and CECT LR-5 for the diagnosis of HCC were 89.5%, 95.0%, and 82.5%, 94.4%, respectively. The sensitivity of CEUS LR-5 + LR-M for the diagnosis of hepatic malignancies was higher than that of CECT (93.7% vs. 82.7%, p < 0.001). The specificity and PPV of CEUS LR-M for the diagnosis of non-HCC malignancies were lower than those of CECT (59.7% vs. 95.5%, p < 0.001; 23.4% vs. 70.3%, p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe inter-modality consistency between the CEUS and CECT LI-RADS categories is fair. CEUS LI-RADS was more sensitive than CECT LI-RADS in terms of identifying hepatic malignancies, but weaker in terms of separating HCC from non-HCC malignancies.
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.