ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025
Quantitative contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in the diagnosis and grading of hepatic steatosis in brain-dead donors.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 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.
- Kupffer phase echo level ratio in contrast-enhanced ultrasound for differentiating malignant liver tumors.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The presence of hepatic steatosis (HS) is a crucial histological parameter for evaluating the suitability of liver transplantation. However, to date, no studies have used contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) to diagnose and grade HS in brain-dead donors. This study aimed to detect and quantify hepatic microcirculatory perfusion in brain-dead donors using CEUS and to assess the utility of CEUS in the diagnosis and grading of HS. Methods: This prospective study enrolled 88 livers from brain-dead donors (44 with HS and 44 without HS) aged ≥18 years between June 2020 and January 2024. The donors had a mean age of 45.42±9.59 years, and 70 were male (79.5%). CEUS was conducted on the livers of the brain-dead donors 24 h before organ procurement, and time-intensity curves were generated. The main measures included the arrival time, time-to-peak, peak intensity of the hepatic artery (PIHA), peak intensity of the portal vein (PIPV), and peak intensity of the liver parenchyma (PILP), and hepatorenal index (HRI). Logistic regression analyses were used to identify the significant factors associated with HS, and the areas under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curves were used to evaluate diagnostic performance. Results: The PIHA (P<0.001), PIPV (P<0.001), and PILP (P=0.001) were significantly shorter in the steatosis group than the non-steatosis group. The one-way analysis of variance revealed significant decreases in the PIHA (P<0.001), PIPV (P<0.001), and PILP (P<0.001) as HS grades increased. The multivariate regression analysis indicated that the PIHA was an independent factor for both HS [odds ratio (OR) =0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.94-0.99, P=0.01] and moderate-to-severe HS (OR =0.96, 95% CI: 0.93-0.99, P=0.009). The AUC values of the PIHA and HRI for diagnosing moderate-to-severe HS were 0.88 and 0.69, respectively. The optimal cut-off value of the PIHA for diagnosing moderate-to-severe HS was 173.04, with a sensitivity of 92.9% (13 of 14 livers), specificity of 68.9% (51 of 74 livers), and positive and negative predictive values of 36.1% and 98.1%, respectively. Conclusions: CEUS showed promising results in the diagnosis and grading of HS in brain-dead donors. The PIHA, a CEUS-derived parameter, could serve as a diagnostic tool for moderate-to-severe HS.
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.