Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37823913›Full record

SynthesisAbdominal radiology (New York)2024

Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging and contrast-enhanced ultrasound in differentiating intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma from hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis.

Yingyi Wu, Chunchao Xia, Jie Chen, Qin Qin, Zheng Ye, Bin Song

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06342414 (An Exosome-Based Liquid Biopsy for the Differential Diagnosis of Primary Liver Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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.

NCT06342414 recruitingnot on this map

An Exosome-Based Liquid Biopsy for the Differential Diagnosis of Primary Liver Cancer

TypeobservationalSponsorCity of Hope Medical CenterRan2024 to 2028Enrolled400ConditionsHepatocellular Carcinoma, Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma, Cholangiocarcinoma, Primary Liver CancerArmsELUCIDATE
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yingyi Wu *Department of Radiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Alley, Chengdu, 610041, China.ORCID 0000-0002-6499-3211
Chunchao Xia *Department of Radiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Alley, Chengdu, 610041, China.ORCID 0000-0003-4338-7199
Jie ChenDepartment of Radiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Alley, Chengdu, 610041, China.ORCID 0000-0001-7446-7541
Qin QinDepartment of Radiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Alley, Chengdu, 610041, China.ORCID 0000-0002-8118-3253
Zheng YeDepartment of Radiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Alley, Chengdu, 610041, China. zheng_ye@scu.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0001-6715-0183
Bin SongDepartment of Radiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Alley, Chengdu, 610041, China. songlab_radiology@163.com.ORCID 0000-0002-7269-2101
Sichuan University · CN

Funding

China Postdoctoral Science Foundation 2023M732464National Natural Science Foundation of China 82302161Post-doctoral Station Development Project of Sanya 23CZ009
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the diagnostic ability between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in distinguishing intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) from hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

methodsOriginal studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of MRI and CEUS in differentiating ICC from HCC were identified in PubMed and EMBASE databases. Histopathological examination was used as the reference standard for tumor diagnosis. Study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2 scale. Data were extracted to calculate the pooled diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) using a bivariate random-effects model, as well as the area under the curve (AUC). Sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, meta-regression, and investigation of publication bias were also performed.

resultsA total of 26 studies with 28 data subsets (18 on MRI, 10 on CEUS) were included, consisting of 4169 patients with 1422 ICC lesions and 2747 HCC lesions. Most MRI studies were performed at 3T with hepatobiliary agents, and most CEUS studies used SonoVue as the contrast agent. In MRI, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, and AUC in distinguishing ICC from HCC were 0.81 (0.79, 0.84), 0.90 (0.88, 0.91), 41.47 (24.07, 71.44), and 0.93 (0.90, 0.96), respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, and AUC of CEUS were 0.88 (0.84, 0.90), 0.80 (0.78, 0.83), 42.06 (12.38, 133.23), and 0.93 (0.87, 0.99), respectively. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression analysis demonstrated significant heterogeneity among the studies associated with the type of contrast agent in MRI studies. No publication bias was found.

conclusionBoth MRI and CEUS showed excellent diagnostic performance in differentiating ICC from HCC. CEUS showed higher pooled sensitivity and MRI showed higher pooled specificity.

Indexed as

Bile Duct NeoplasmsCarcinoma, HepatocellularCholangiocarcinomaLiver NeoplasmsBile Ducts, IntrahepaticContrast MediaHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityUltrasonographyContrast MediaContrast-enhanced ultrasonographyHepatocellular carcinomaIntrahepatic cholangiocarcinomaMagnetic resonance imagingMeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID37823913
OpenAlexW4387563117

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.