ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2023
Magnetic resonance elastography for noninvasive detection of liver fibrosis: is there an added value of 3D acquisition?
Article 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 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Precision of 3D MRE and 2D MRE for Measurement of Liver Stiffness in Adults with Severe Obesity.Radiology · 2026Article
- Biomechanical Assessment of Liver Integrity: Prospective Evaluation of Mechanical Versus Acoustic MR Elastography.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2025Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purpose(1) Assess the diagnostic performance of liver 3D magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) parameters (including stiffness, storage/loss modulus and damping ratio) compared to liver stiffness measured with 2D MRE for noninvasive detection of advanced liver fibrosis (F3-F4) and cirrhosis (F4) in patients with chronic liver disease. (2) Assess the value of serum markers (FIB-4) in detecting advanced liver fibrosis and cirrhosis in the same patients.
methodsThis was a single center, prospective IRB-approved cross-sectional study that included 49 patients (M/F: 23/26, mean age 50.8 y) with chronic liver disease and concomitant liver biopsy. MRE was acquired at 1.5T using a spin echo-EPI sequence. The following parameters were measured: liver stiffness using 2D MRE (LS-2D) and 3D MRE parameters (LS-3D, liver storage, loss modulus and damping ratio). The Mann-Whitney U test, ROC curve analysis, Spearman correlation and logistic regression were performed to evaluate diagnostic performance of MRE parameters and FIB-4.
resultsLS-2D and LS-3D had similar diagnostic performance for diagnosis of F3-F4, with AUCs of 0.87 and 0.88, sensitivity of 0.71 and 0.81, specificity of 0.89 for both. For diagnosis of F4, LS-2D and LS-3D had similar performance with AUCs of 0.81 for both, sensitivity of 0.75 and 0.83, and specificity of 0.84 and 0.73, respectively. Additional 3D parameters (storage modulus, loss modulus, damping ratio) had variable performance, with AUC range of 0.59-0.78 for F3-F4; and 0.52-0.70 for F4. FIB-4 had lower diagnostic performance, with AUCs of 0.66 for F3-F4, and 0.68 for F4.
conclusionOur study shows no added value of 3D MRE compared to 2D MRE for detection of advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis, while FIB-4 had lower diagnostic performance.
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.