ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Diagnostic Accuracy of Liver and Spleen Stiffness in Magnetic Resonance Elastography for the Detection of Gastroesophageal Varices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predicting esophageal varices in cirrhosis: diagnostic utility of MR elastography and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Development and evaluation of a predictive model based on multi-frequency magnetic resonance elastography for high-risk esophagogastric varices in patients with cirrhotic portal hypertension.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Utility of splenic transient elastography in assessing the presence of portal hypertension: A review.World journal of methodology · 2025Review
- Quantitative Assessment of Polarization and Elastic Properties of Endometrial Tissue for Precancer/Cancer Diagnostics Using Multimodal Optical Coherence Tomography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the performance of magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) in detecting gastroesophageal varices (GEV) in patients with chronic liver disease (CLD).
methodsA literature search in English and Chinese databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure was conducted. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC) of the summary receiver-operating characteristic (SROC) curve with a 95% CI were calculated. A quality analysis of the included study was conducted using the QUADAS-2 tool, and a meta-analysis was performed using Stata16. The clinical practical value of MRE in detecting GEV was evaluated using the Fagan plot. Heterogeneity across studies was explored through meta-regression and subgroup analyses.
resultsA total of nine relevant articles that compared liver stiffness (LS) or spleen stiffness (SS) using MRE with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) to detect the existence of GEV were identified. The pooled summary sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR of LS or SS for the detection of GEV were 81% (95% CI: 74%, 87%), 72% (95% CI: 62%, 80%), 2.89 (95% CI: 2.12, 3.94), 0.26 (95% CI: 0.19, 0.36), and 10.91 (95% CI: 6.53, 18.24), respectively. The year of publication, study design, and MR equipment are the sources of heterogeneity. There was no significant difference in the publication bias (
conclusionsBased on these findings, MRE demonstrates good diagnostic accuracy for detecting GEV in patients with CLD.
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.