ArticleiLIVER2025
Contrast-enhanced US and contrast-enhanced CT for diagnosis of focal liver lesions in liver transplant recipients: A comparative study.
Article in iLIVER, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is widely used in the diagnosis of complications after liver transplantation. This study compared the diagnostic efficacy of CEUS with that of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) for focal liver lesions in liver transplant recipients. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 115 liver transplant recipients who were diagnosed to have focal liver lesions at our hospital between June 2015 and June 2023. All patients were examined by CEUS and CECT and had a definitive pathological diagnosis. Based on the diagnostic outcomes, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of these imaging modalities in differentiating between benign and malignant lesions were calculated using a four-table method. Differences in diagnostic efficacy between CEUS and CECT with respect to pathological findings were compared using the chi-squared test and Fisher's exact test. The consistency of diagnosis between these modalities was assessed using the linear weighted kappa test. Results: CEUS identified 79 malignant and 36 benign lesions, while CECT detected 81 malignant and 34 benign lesions. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and overall accuracy of CEUS and CECT in diagnosis of focal lesions in transplanted livers were 95.7% vs 97.2%, 97.2% vs 96.1%, 97.9% vs 97.5%, 97.2% vs 98.6%, and 96.4% vs 97.1%, respectively. Both CEUS and CECT demonstrated comparable diagnostic efficacy (κ = 0.899). CEUS showed strong diagnostic consistency with pathological results (κ = 0.912) and was more effective than CECT in diagnosing focal normal liver tissue and fat infiltration ( Conclusion: CEUS is as effective as CECT for diagnosis of benign and malignant lesions in transplanted livers but surpasses CECT in differentiating benign lesions, particularly focal normal liver tissue and fat infiltration.
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.