ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2025
Qualitative assessment of hepatic steatosis on modern grayscale ultrasound: more accurate than previously thought?
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.
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
objectiveTo assess the diagnostic performance of standardized qualitative assessment of hepatic steatosis on grayscale ultrasound.
methodsThis retrospective, single-center, multi-case, multi-reader study included 200 patients with ultrasound examinations of the liver. Three readers assessed hepatic steatosis based on a standardized system of 3 ultrasound features: presence of increased fine echoes, visualization of right hemidiaphragm, and visualization of portal triads, assigning a four-grade category (normal, mild, moderate, or severe). Magnetic resonance imaging proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) was used as reference standard. Binary discrimination (normal vs. steatosis) was summarized with binary area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity. Discrimination across four categories was performed with pairwise comparisons. Reader differences were tested with the Obuchowski-Rockette-Hillis model. Inter-reader agreement was calculated with Gwet's agreement coefficient (AC).
resultsOf the 200 patients, 27% (54/200) had normal liver (MRI-PDFF < 5%), 35% (70/200) had mild steatosis (MRI-PDFF ≥ 5-17.4%), 15% (29/200) had moderate steatosis (MRI-PDFF > 17.4-22.1%), and 24% (47/200) had severe steatosis (MRI-PDFF > 22.1%). Median time interval between ultrasound and MRI exams was 4 days (IQR 1-28). Sensitivity, specific, and binary AUC for readers 1/2/3 were 90%/82%/94%, 65%/82%/54%, and 0.87/0.85/0.88 with no statistically significant difference between readers (p = 0.46). Four-class category analysis showed excellent performance of ultrasound to distinguish extreme categories (AUC > 0.95 for normal vs. severe). Inter-reader agreement was substantial (Gwet's AC 0.63) for steatosis category assignment and moderate to substantial (Gwet's AC 0.55-0.71) for ultrasound features.
conclusionContrary to popular belief, qualitative ultrasound assessment of hepatic steatosis is accurate in detecting and grading steatosis when evaluation criteria are standardized.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40423706What 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.