Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40102528›Full record

ArticleCommunications medicine2025

Utility and cost-effectiveness of LiverMultiScan for MASLD diagnosis: a real-world multi-national randomised clinical trial.

Elizabeth Shumbayawonda, Marika French, Jane Elizabeth Carolan, Cayden Beyer, Paula Lorgelly, Dimitar Tonev, Rajarshi Banerjee, Michael H Miller, Christopher D Byrne, Janisha Patel and 12 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Real-World Assessment of Liver Corrected T1 and Magnetic Resonance Elastography in Predicting Liver Disease Progression.Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
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

22 authors.

Elizabeth ShumbayawondaPerspectum Ltd, Oxford, UK. elizabeth.shumbayawonda@perspectum.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0351-2063
Marika FrenchPerspectum Ltd, Oxford, UK.
Jane Elizabeth CarolanPerspectum Ltd, Oxford, UK.
Cayden BeyerPerspectum Ltd, Oxford, UK.
Paula LorgellyInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.
Dimitar TonevPerspectum Ltd, Oxford, UK.
Rajarshi BanerjeePerspectum Ltd, Oxford, UK.
Michael H MillerNinewells Hospital, Dundee, UK.
Christopher D ByrneSouthampton National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6322-7753
Janisha PatelSouthampton National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK.
Saima AjazInstitute of Liver Studies, Kings College Hospital, London, UK.
Kosh AgarwalInstitute of Liver Studies, Kings College Hospital, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4754-828X
Johanna BackhusUniversity Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Minneke J CoenraadDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Jelte J SchaapmanDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0691-4818
Andrew FraserConsultant Hepatologist and Gastroenterologist, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK.
Miguel Castelo BrancoCIBIT (Coimbra Institute for Biomedical Imaging and Translational) Research, Faculdade de Medicina, Instituto de Ciências Nucleares Aplicadas à Saúde, Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4364-6373
Stephen BarclayGlasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK.
Matthias M DollingerUniversity Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Daniel J CuthbertsonDepartment of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Daniel FortonDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, St. George's Hospital, London, UK.
Hildo J LambDepartment of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6969-2418

Funding

EC | Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation H2020) 719445
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncreasing prevalence of metabolic dysfunction-associated liver disease (MASLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) poses a growing healthcare burden. Noninvasive diagnostic tools to replace liver biopsy are urgently needed. We investigated the utility and cost-effectiveness of including multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to the management of adults with suspected MASLD multi-nationally.

methodsRADIcAL-1, a 1:1 randomised controlled trial (standard-of-care [SoC] vs. imaging arm [IA; SoC+mpMRI]) included 802 participants from Germany, Netherlands, Portugal and UK. Wilcoxon-rank tests were used to compare access to healthcare practitioners, patient assessments and proportion of patients with a diagnosis (%diagnosis). Liver fat and disease activity (corrected T1 [cT1]) were used to identify patients not requiring biopsy in the imaging arm. Primary endpoint was mpMRI cost-effectiveness and improvement in resource use (visits avoided) using mpMRI.

resultsmpMRI is cost-effective with an ICER of €4968/QALY gained. 403 were randomised to IA and 399 to SoC. SoC has significantly more specialist appointments (p = 0.015) and patient assessments (p < 0.001). Across all involved hospitals, %diagnosis is significantly higher in the imaging arm (p = 0.0012). cT1 correctly classifies 50% of patients without MASH with fibrosis and can avoid biopsy. Including all costs, the imaging arm incurs higher short-term per-patient healthcare expenditure compared to the SoC arm (€1,300 vs. €830).

conclusionAdding mpMRI to SoC for the management of adults with suspected MASLD multi-nationally is cost-effective, enhances rate of diagnosis multi-nationally and increases rate of diagnosis without increasing other liver-related health care resource use. Due to the need for standardisation of SoC, widespread use can support optimisation of the MASLD clinical pathway and improve long-term patient management.

Identifiers

PMID40102528
PMCPMC11920111

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.