ArticleLa Radiologia medica2025
Improving diagnostic accuracy in cirrhotic patients: a comprehensive multicenter analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasound-guided biopsy in a large cohort of 2056 patients.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the factors influencing ultrasound-guided liver biopsy accuracy and develop a decision model for managing biopsy results. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective study enrolled 2056 adult patients with focal hepatic lesions from nine Chinese hospitals. Diagnostic accuracy was calculated, and variables were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression. A prediction model was constructed using chi-square automatic interaction detection.
resultsThis study enrolled 2056 participants (1297 men, 759 women; mean age, 67.8 ± 10.8 years) with 2056 biopsied lesions (mean ± standard deviation: 4.0 ± 2.8 cm; range 0.7-17.7 cm), and 94.2% were accurately diagnosed. Two to three biopsy passes were significantly more accurate than one pass (95.1% vs. 87.3%, P < 0.001) and comparable to the accuracy of > 3 passes (95.1% vs. 93.2%, P = 0.408). Independent predictors of accurate diagnoses included absence of cirrhosis [2.428 (1.457-3.741), P < 0.001], CEUS guidance [1.899 (1.288-2.801), P = 0.001], and number of biopsy passes > 1 [1.775 (1.103-2.855), P = 0.018]. The predictive decision tree model demonstrated that for cirrhotic patients who underwent CEUS-guided biopsy, the probability of an accurate diagnosis increased from 88.3% (when US-guided biopsy was used) to 93.3%. Conversely, in noncirrhotic patients undergoing US-guided biopsy, a diagnostic accuracy probability of 96.4% was observed. The overall prediction accuracy of the model was 94.4%.
conclusionCEUS-guided biopsy enhances diagnostic accuracy in cirrhotic patients, whereas US-guided biopsy is highly accurate in noncirrhotic patients. Two to three needle punctures are sufficient for 95% accuracy, with no additional improvement from more punctures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40591197What 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.