ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Enhanced diagnostic performance of WE-SHARP-DWI compared with SPAIR-DWI for focal liver lesion evaluation at 3T.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of 2 fat suppression techniques in diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for detecting and assessing focal liver lesions (FLLs): water excitation spectral heterogeneity adaptive radiofrequency pulses (WE-SHARP) and conventional spectral adiabatic inversion recovery (SPAIR). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective study enrolled eligible participants between October 2023 and August 2024. Various DWI techniques at 3T, SPAIR-DWI, WE-SHARP-DWI, and WE-SHARP-DWI with correction algorithms (WE-SHARP-DWI*), acquired at b values of 50, 400, 800, and 1200 s/mm², were used to evaluate FLLs. Two radiologists independently assessed several subjective image quality parameters: liver edge sharpness, vessel delineation, lesion conspicuity, fat suppression effectiveness, artifacts, and overall image quality. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values were also measured. The diagnostic performance of all 3 sequences was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.
resultsThe study included 158 patients (67 with malignant and 91 with benign lesions) and 25 volunteers. Compared with SPAIR-DWI, the subjective image quality parameters were superior for both WE-SHARP sequences (P < .001). SNR increased 2.15-fold with WE-SHARP-DWI and 2.93-fold with WE-SHARP-DWI*. CNR also improved substantially with the WE-SHARP sequences (30.75 ± 36.83 and 42.43 ± 53.23 vs. 13.49 ± 14.39). Further, WE-SHARP sequences demonstrated lower ADC measurement variability with lower standard deviations (32.80 ± 19.13 × 10⁻³ mm²/s and 34.39 ± 18.22 × 10⁻³ mm²/s vs. 51.48 ± 17.89 × 10⁻³ mm²/s) in normal liver and more pronounced ADC differences between benign and malignant lesions (1179 × 10
conclusionsBoth WE-SHARP-DWI techniques demonstrated superior image quality and diagnostic value for assessing FLLs than the conventional SPAIR technique. These techniques retained clinically acceptable image quality even at high b values.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40900232What 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.