ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2025
Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging for ruling out high-risk esophageal varices in cirrhosis.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo explore the role of liver- and spleen-based Intravoxel Incoherent Motion Diffusion-weighted Imaging (IVIM) imaging in ruling out high-risk esophageal varices (HREVs) in patients with cirrhosis and compare it with other noninvasive tests (NITs).
methodsPatients with liver cirrhosis who underwent paired Esophagogastroduod-enoscopy (EGD) and upper abdominal IVIM imaging between January 2015 and December 2021 were retrospectively enrolled. Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the potential predictors of HREVs. The diagnostic performance was estimated with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). We used the 95% sensitivity to determine the cutoff for ruling out HREVs and compared the spared EGD rate of IVIM imaging with that of NITs. A sensitivity analysis was carried out to assess the impact of the prevalence of HREVs on the negative predictive value (NPV) at given cutoff values.
resultsA total of 244 patients were included, and HREVs were found in 54.1% (132/244) of the patients. The parameters f_S, D*_S and D*_L independently predicted HREVs. Compared with NITs, f_S (AUROC: 0.90) performed significantly better (all p < 0.05), and D*_S (AUROC: 0.74) and D*_L (AUROC: 0.73) performed similarly. f_S (cutoff ≤ 16.1%) had the highest spared EGD rate (27.0%), with a missed HREVs rate of less than 5%, and showed excellent interobserver repeatability. The NPV of f_S remained above 90% as the prevalence of HREVs increased from 5 to 50%.
conclusionSplenic microcirculatory perfusion parameters (f_S and D*_S) are potential noninvasive markers for ruling out HREVs and avoiding unnecessary EGDs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40481887What 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.