Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39022290›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2024

The American College of Radiology contrast-enhanced ultrasound Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System and its modified version in diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma via Sonazoid: a meta-analysis.

Jiazhi Cao, Hong Wang, Xiaomiao Ruan, Jingwen Yang, Youxiang Ren, Wenwu Ling

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jiazhi Cao *Department of Medical Ultrasound, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-7628-6872
Hong Wang *Department of Medical Ultrasound, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7613-019X
Xiaomiao RuanDepartment of Medical Ultrasound, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8658-0100
Jingwen YangDepartment of Medical Ultrasound, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-9172-3577
Youxiang RenDepartment of Medical Ultrasound, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-8420-1559
Wenwu LingDepartment of Medical Ultrasound, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6449-3831

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The American College of Radiology (ACR) developed the contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) for pure blood contrast agents, but Sonazoid was not included. Modifications to LI-RADS have been proposed for Sonazoid. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to identify and compare the diagnostic efficacy of the two LI-RADS algorithms of Sonazoid. Methods: We searched the PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from databases inception to August 31, 2023, to find original studies on the ACR LI-RADS and/or modified LI-RADS algorithm with Sonazoid used as the contrast agent in patients with high-risk hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). A bivariate random-effects model was used. Data pooling, meta-regression, and sensitivity analysis were performed for meta-analysis. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool was used to assess the methodological quality, and the Deeks funnel plot asymmetry test was used to evaluate the publication bias. Results: A meta-analysis of 10 studies with 1,611 observations was conducted. The pooled data for ACR LI-RADS category 5 (LR-5) and modified LR-5 were respectively as follows: pooled sensitivity, 0.70 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.64-0.75] and 0.81 (95% CI: 0.76-0.86) (P<0.05); pooled specificity, 0.90 (95% CI: 0.82-0.94) and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.81-0.91) (P>0.05); and pooled area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.84 and 0.91. The diagnostic performance of LI-RADS category M (LR-M) of the two algorithms was comparable. Study heterogeneity was observed. Conclusions: The results indicated that modified LR-5 algorithm demonstrated improved diagnostic sensitivity compared with the ACR LR-5 algorithm of Sonazoid, with differences observed between the different versions. Further research is needed to validate and explore the optimal diagnostic criteria for HCC using Sonazoid. Before the database search was conducted, this study was registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; CRD42023455220).

Indexed as

contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS)Meta-analysisSonazoid

Identifiers

PMID39022290
PMCPMC11250333

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.