ArticleJournal of ultrasound2024
Reliability and stability of ultrasound-guided attenuation parameter in evaluating hepatic steatosis.
Article in Journal of ultrasound, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to explore the reliability and stability of ultrasound-guided attenuation parameter (UGAP) values obtained by two measuring methods and different measuring times.
methodsPatients who underwent liver UGAP examinations in our hospital from September 2022 to December 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. The clinical data and UGAP measurements results were collected. Two different measuring methods: static single-frame multi-point measuring and dynamic multi-frame single-point measuring, were performed for each patient, and 10 UGAP values of each measuring method were recorded. The medians of the UGAP values of the 1st-3rd, 1st-5th, 1st-7th and 1st-10th by each measuring method were taken as the final UGAP values of measuring 3, 5, 7 and 10 times. The UGAP values obtained by the two different measuring methods and different measuring times (3, 5, 7 or 10 times) were compared.
results206 patients were included in this study. There was no statistical difference between UGAP values measured by static single-frame multi-point measuring and dynamic multi-frame single-point measuring (P = 0.689, P = 0.270, P = 0.298, P = 0.091), regardless of measuring times (3, 5, 7, 10 times). No significant difference between the UGAP values obtained by 3, 5, 7 and 10 measurements was found (P = 0.554, P = 0.916).
conclusionThe UGAP values obtained by the two different measuring methods and different measuring times (3, 5, 7 and 10 times) are stable and reliable. Additionally, 3 times of UGAP measurements might be enough for each patient in clinical practice.
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.