Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39254718›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2025

Evaluation of MRI proton density fat fraction in hepatic steatosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Narges Azizi, Hamed Naghibi, Madjid Shakiba, Mina Morsali, Diana Zarei, Hedayat Abbastabar, Hossein Ghanaati

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Nor-ursodeoxycholic acid in hepatobiliary diseases: A narrative review.World journal of gastrointestinal pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors.

Narges AziziAdvanced Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology Research Center (ADIR), Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran.
Hamed NaghibiAdvanced Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology Research Center (ADIR), Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran.
Madjid ShakibaAdvanced Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology Research Center (ADIR), Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran.
Mina MorsaliAdvanced Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology Research Center (ADIR), Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran.
Diana ZareiAdvanced Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology Research Center (ADIR), Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran.
Hedayat AbbastabarAdvanced Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology Research Center (ADIR), Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran.
Hossein GhanaatiAdvanced Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology Research Center (ADIR), Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran. Ghanaati@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4107-9336

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAmidst the global rise of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), driven by increasing obesity rates, there is a pressing need for precise, non-invasive diagnostic tools. Our research aims to validate MRI Proton Density Fat Fraction (MRI-PDFF) utility, compared to liver biopsy, in grading hepatic steatosis in MASLD.

methodsA systematic search was conducted across Embase, PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science until January 13, 2024, selecting studies that compare MRI-PDFF with liver biopsy for hepatic steatosis grading, defined as grades 0 (< 5% steatosis), 1 (5-33% steatosis), 2 (34-66% steatosis), and 3 (> 66% steatosis).

resultsTwenty-two studies with 2844 patients were included. The analysis showed high accuracy of MRI-PDFF with AUCs of 0.97 (95% CI = 0.96-0.98) for grade 0 vs ≥ 1, 0.91 (95% CI = 0.88-0.93) for ≤ 1 vs ≥ 2, and 0.91 (95% CI = 0.88-0.93) for ≤ 2 vs 3, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) from 98.74 (95% CI = 58.61-166.33) to 23.36 (95% CI = 13.76-39.68), sensitivity and specificity from 0.93 (95% CI = 0.88-0.96) to 0.76 (95% CI = 0.63-0.85) and 0.93 (95% CI = 0.88-0.96) to 0.89 (95% CI = 0.84-0.93), respectively. Likelihood ratio (LR) + ranged from 13.3 (95% CI = 7.4-24.0) to 7.2 (95% CI = 4.9-10.5), and LR - from 0.08 (95% CI = 0.05-0.13) to 0.27 (95% CI = 0.17-0.42). The proposed MRI-PDFF threshold of 5.7% for liver fat content emerges as a potential cut-off for the discrimination between grade 0 vs ≥ 1 (p = 0.075).

conclusionMRI-PDFF is a precise non-invasive technique for diagnosing and grading hepatic steatosis, warranting further studies to establish its diagnostic thresholds. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This study underscores the high diagnostic accuracy of MRI-PDFF for distinguishing between various grades of hepatic steatosis for early detection and management of MASLD, though further research is necessary for broader application. KEY POINTS: MRI-PDFF offers precision in diagnosing and monitoring hepatic steatosis. The diagnostic accuracy of MRI-PDFF decreases as the grade of hepatic steatosis advances. A 5.7% MRI-PDFF threshold differentiates steatotic from non-steatotic livers.

Indexed as

Adipose TissueFatty LiverMagnetic Resonance ImagingBiopsyHumansLiverProtonsSensitivity and SpecificityProtonsHepatic steatosisMagnetic resonance imagingMRI-PDFFMRI proton density fat fractionNon-alcoholic fatty liver disease

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.