ArticleJournal of liver cancer2024
Inter-reader agreement for CT/MRI LI-RADS category M imaging features: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of liver cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Detection and differentiation of atypical hepatocellular carcinomas].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Concurrent AI assistance with LI-RADS classification for contrast enhanced MRI of focal hepatic nodules: a multi-reader, multi-case study.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- LR-M for CT/MRI on LI-RADS v2018: a review of imaging criteria, performance, challenges and future directions from an end-user perspective.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Intrahepatic Lymphoid Follicles Comprising T and B Cells Mimic Hepatocellular Carcinoma in a Hepatitis B Patient.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Inter-reader agreement for LR-M imaging features: a premise for better imaging-based diagnosis in liver imaging.Journal of liver cancer · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUNDS/
aimsTo systematically evaluate inter-reader agreement in the assessment of individual liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS) category M (LR-M) imaging features in computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (CT/MRI) LIRADS v2018, and to explore the causes of poor agreement in LR-M assignment.
methodsOriginal studies reporting inter-reader agreement for LR-M features on multiphasic CT or MRI were identified using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. The pooled kappa coefficient (κ) was calculated using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q test and I2 statistics. Subgroup meta-regression analyses were conducted to explore the study heterogeneity.
resultsIn total, 24 eligible studies with 5,163 hepatic observations were included. The pooled κ values were 0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-0.78) for rim arterial phase hyperenhancement, 0.52 (95% CI, 0.39-0.65) for peripheral washout, 0.60 (95% CI, 0.50-0.70) for delayed central enhancement, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.57-0.78) for targetoid restriction, 0.74 (95% CI, 0.65-0.83) for targetoid transitional phase/hepatobiliary phase appearance, 0.64 (95% CI, 0.49-0.78) for infiltrative appearance, 0.49 (95% CI, 0.30-0.68) for marked diffusion restriction, and 0.61 (95% CI, 0.48-0.73) for necrosis or severe ischemia. Substantial study heterogeneity was observed for all LR-M features (Cochran's Q test, P<0.01; I2≥89.2%). Studies with a mean observation size of <3 cm, those performed using 1.5-T MRI, and those with multiple image readers, were significantly associated with poor agreement of LR-M features.
conclusionsThe agreement for peripheral washout and marked diffusion restriction was limited. The LI-RADS should focus on improving the agreement of LR-M features.
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.