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.
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.
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.
An Exosome-Based Liquid Biopsy for the Differential Diagnosis of Primary Liver Cancer
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Application Status of Radiomics-Based Machine Learning in Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Imaging of mass-forming intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: from detection to personalized treatments.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Advances in In Vitro Diagnostics for Cholangiocarcinoma: From Biomarker Discovery to Artificial Intelligence.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Advanced imaging techniques at the crossroads of cholangiocarcinoma and liver transplantation: Can we bridge the gap?World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Review
- Preoperative ternary classification using DCE-MRI radiomics and machine learning for HCC, ICC, and HIPT.Insights into imaging · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.