ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2025
Diagnostic performance of CT/MRI LI-RADS v2018 in non-cirrhotic hepatitis C virus infection.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2025. 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of LI-RADS among patients with non-cirrhotic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection.
methodsThis retrospective, IRB-approved, single-center study included 66 observations from 43 adult patients (11 women, 32 men; median age 65 years). All patients received liver protocol CT or MRI from 2010 to 2023, had HCV, and did not have cirrhosis based on histopathology. Three board-certified abdominal radiologists blinded to histopathology and imaging follow-up assessed each observation for major features and final LI-RADS category, and inter-reader agreements with weighted kappa were calculated. The positive predictive value, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of in diagnosing HCC and overall malignancy was calculated.
resultsOf the 66 observations, 53 (80%) were malignant and 13 (20%) were benign. Positive predictive value for HCC was 0-0% for LR-1, 0-0% for LR-2, 0-33% for LR-3, 57-100% for LR-4, 98-100% for LR-5, 25-50% for LR-M, and 83-100% for LR-TIV. Positive predictive value for overall malignancy was 0-0% for LR-1, 0-0% for LR-2, 0-33% for LR-3, 57-100% for LR-4, 98-100% for LR-5, 100-100% for LR-M, and 100-100% for LR-TIV. For LR-5 in identifying HCC, sensitivity ranged from 74 to 90%, specificity from 94 to 100%, and accuracy from 80 to 91%. For the composite of LR-5, LR-M, or LR-TIV in identifying overall malignancy, sensitivity was 87-98%, specificity was 92-100%, and accuracy was 89-97%. The inter-reader agreement for major features varied from moderate to substantial, with substantial agreement for the final category.
conclusionCT/MRI LI-RADS v2018 criteria can be applied to non-cirrhotic HCV patients with near-perfect specificity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39400590What 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.