ArticleHepatology forum2024
Correlation between ultrasonography and MR proton density fat fraction techniques in evaluating the severity of liver steatosis.
Article in Hepatology forum, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aim: To investigate the relationship between ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance (MR) proton density fat fraction (PDFF) techniques, using the modified DIXON method, in determining the severity of liver steatosis. Materials and Methods: This study included seventy consecutive patients who underwent upper abdominal MRI for various reasons between June 2016 and January 2017. Fatty liver staging was performed using US as indicated.The liver fat percentage was measured and staged according to PDFF values. Results: In the study, of the 70 cases, 36 were male and 34 were female. On US, 18.5% of the cases had stage 0, 32.8% had stage 1, 42.8% had stage 2, and 5.7% had stage 3 liver steatosis. A significant correlation was found between ultrasonographic evaluation and PDFF in determining the percentage of liver fat (r=0.775, p<0.001). When comparing the percentages, MR-evaluated PDFF and ultrasonographic staging were most compatible at grade 3 and least compatible at grade 2. When the PDFF threshold value was set at 8.1%, the sensitivity of US in distinguishing between obvious and indistinct steatosis was 97.1%, and the specificity was 88.9%. Conclusion: Ultrasound continues to be a useful tool for detecting fatty liver disease. However, magnetic resonance (MR) proton density fat fraction (PDFF) imaging is essential for accurately determining the severity and prevalence of steatosis. Our study revealed inconsistencies between US and MR PDFF in grading liver steatosis, showing higher agreement in severe cases and lower agreement in moderate cases. Therefore, we recommend classifying steatosis as either uncertain or apparent rather than using a grading system in US.
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.