ArticleEuropean radiology2025
MR elastography vs a combination of common non-invasive tests for estimation of severe liver fibrosis in patients with hepatobiliary tumors.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mechanomedicine in digestive surgery: a theranostic framework integrating mechanical diagnostics and therapeutic modulation across the perioperative continuum.Theranostics · 2026Review
- Radiologists and treatment response assessment: conventional and functional radiological criteria for predicting therapeutic response in virus-related and non-virus-related cancers.Infectious agents and cancer · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the accuracy of combined imaging and blood test indices related to liver fibrosis (LF) compared to magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) for estimating severe LF (F3-4) in preoperative patients.
methodsThis retrospective study included patients who underwent MRE, gadolinium ethoxybenzyl diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced MRI, and dynamic CT before liver resection. Liver stiffness measurement (LSM) using MRE, liver-to-spleen signal intensity ratio (LSR) using Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI, and spleen volume normalized to body surface area (SV/BSA) using CT volumetry were measured. Laboratory parameters, including levels of type IV collagen 7S and hyaluronic acid, were also measured. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic analyses were performed to identify parameters that could estimate severe LF more accurately than LSM alone.
resultsA total of 81 patients (mean age, 67 years ± 9.9 [SD]; 58 men) were enrolled. Multivariable logistic regression analysis indicated that LSR (odds ratio [OR]: 0.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.05-0.37, p < 0.001), SV/BSA (OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.02-1.52, p = 0.03) and type IV collagen 7S (OR: 1.84, 95% CI: 1.12-3.00, p = 0.02) were associated with severe LF. Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that for estimating severe LF, the area under the curve was significantly larger for the combination of LSR, SV/BSA, and type IV collagen 7S than for LSM alone (0.95 vs 0.85, p = 0.04).
conclusionThe combined evaluation of LSR, SV/BSA, and type IV collagen 7S obtained by clinically common preoperative examinations was more accurate than MRE alone for estimating severe LF in preoperative patients. KEY POINTS: Question What indicators among the imaging and blood tests commonly performed preoperatively can provide a more accurate estimate of severe LF compared to MRE? Findings The combination of LSR, SV/BSA, and type IV collagen 7S was more accurate than an LSM alone for estimating severe LF. Clinical relevance A combination of commonly performed non-invasive preoperative tests provides a more accurate estimation of severe LF than MR elastography, an examination with relatively limited.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39349724What 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.