ArticleHeliyon2024
The staging of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease fibrosis: A comparative study of MR elastography and the quantitative DCE-MRI exchange model.
Article in Heliyon, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Application and prospects of magnetic resonance imaging techniques in the diagnosis and evaluation of hepatocellular carcinoma].Zhonghua gan zang bing za zhi = Zhonghua ganzangbing zazhi = Chinese journal of hepatology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and image processing time of the dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) exchange model in liver fibrosis staging and compare it to the efficacy of magnetic resonance elastography (MRE). Methods: The subjects were 45 patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) who underwent MRE and DCE-MRI in our hospital. Liver biopsy results were available for all patients. Spearman rank correlation coefficients were used to compare the correlations among MRE, DCE-MRI and liver fibrosis parameters. Quantitative DCE-MRI parameters, MRE-derived liver stiffness measurement (LSM), and the results of a combined DCE-MRI + MRE logistic regression model were compared in terms of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). We also compared the scanning and postprocessing times of the MRE and DCE-MRI techniques. Results: The correlation coefficients between the following parameters of interest and liver fibrosis were as follows: capillary permeability-surface area product (PS; DCE-MRI parameter), -0.761; portal blood flow (Fp; DCE-MRI parameter), -0.754; MRE-LSM, 0.835. Some DCE-MRI parameters (PS, Fp) had slightly greater AUC values than MRE-LSM for diagnosing the presence or absence of liver fibrosis, and the combined model had the highest AUC value for all stages except F4, but there was no significant difference in the diagnostic efficacy of the DCE-MRI, MRE, and combined models for any stage of fibrosis. The average scanning times for MRE and DCE-MRI were 17 s and 330 s, respectively, and the average postprocessing times were 45.5 s and 342.7 s, respectively. Conclusions: In the absence of MRE equipment, DCE-MRI represents an alternative technique. However, MRE is a quicker and simpler method for assessing fibrosis than DCE-MRI in the clinic.
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.