ArticleUltrasonography (Seoul, Korea)2025
Comparison between vibration-controlled transient elastography and point shear wave elastography for assessment of hepatic fibrosis based on magnetic resonance elastography.
Article in Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea), 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.
- Imaging-based fibrosis assessment and risk stratification in MASLD.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study prospectively compared the diagnostic accuracy of vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) and point shear wave elastography (pSWE) in the assessment of liver fibrosis, versus a reference standard of magnetic resonance elastography (MRE).
methodsThis study prospectively enrolled patients with chronic liver disease, who underwent pSWE, VCTE, and MRE. Fibrosis was staged based on liver stiffness (LS) values measured using MRE: F0 (<2.61 kPa), F1 (≥2.61 to <2.97 kPa), F2 (≥2.97 to <3.62 kPa), F3 (≥3.62 to <4.69 kPa), and F4 (≥4.69 kPa). Each modality was performed independently, and the results were blinded to minimize bias. Diagnostic performance was assessed using the Pearson correlation coefficient (CC), Lin concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), Obuchowski index, integrated discrimination improvement (IDI), and net reclassification improvement (NRI).
resultsIn total, 251 patients (median age, 64 years; 97 women) were evaluated. Both pSWE (CC, 0.838; CCC, 0.825) and VCTE (CC, 0.803; CCC, 0.784) demonstrated strong correlations with MRE, with no statistically significant differences. AUROC values for diagnosing fibrosis stage were comparable between pSWE and VCTE. Based on the Obuchowski index, pSWE provided closer agreement with MRE in detecting ≥F1, ≥F2, and ≥F4. Analyses of IDI and NRI also displayed significantly better agreement between pSWE and MRE in detecting ≥F1, ≥F2, and ≥F4 (NRI: P<0.001; IDI: F1 and F2, P<0.001; F4, P=0.002).
conclusionpSWE demonstrated closer alignment than VCTE with LS values measured by MRE, suggesting the potential of pSWE for noninvasively assessing liver fibrosis.
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.