SynthesisAbdominal radiology (New York)2024
Diagnostic performance of MRI for residual or recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after locoregional treatment according to contrast agent type: a systematic review and 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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe ideal contrast agent for imaging patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) following locoregional therapies (LRT) remains uncertain. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging with extracellular contrast agent (ECA-MRI) and hepatobiliary agent (EOB-MRI) in detecting residual or recurrence HCC following LRT.
methodsOriginal studies comparing the diagnostic performance of ECA-MRI and EOB-MRI were systematically identified through comprehensive searches in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of ECA-MRI and EOB-MRI were calculated using a bivariate-random-effects model. Subgroup-analyses were conducted to compare the diagnostic performance of ECA-MRI and EOB-MRI according to different variables. Meta-regression analysis was employed to explore potential sources of study heterogeneity.
resultsA total of 15 eligible studies encompassing 803 patients and 1018 lesions were included. Comparative analysis revealed no significant difference between ECA-MRI and EOB-MRI in the overall pooled sensitivity (87% vs. 79%) and specificity (92% vs. 96%) for the detection of residual or recurrent HCC after LRT (P = 0.41), with comparable areas under the HSROC of 0.95 and 0.92. Subgroup analyses indicated no significant diagnostic performance differences between ECA-MRI and EOB-MRI according to study design, type of LRT, most common etiology of liver disease, baseline lesion size, time of post-treated examination and MRI field strength (All P > 0.05).
conclusionECA-MRI exhibited overall comparable diagnostic performance to EOB-MRI in assessing residual or recurrent HCC after LRT.
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.