ArticleScientific reports2025
Predictive value of subharmonic-aided pressure estimation for diagnosing clinically significant portal hypertension.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- A Noninvasive Predictive Model of Portal Hypertension in Patients with HCC Based on Clinical Features and Intra- and Peritumoral Pre-Fusion Radiomic Features.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Subharmonic-aided pressure estimation (SHAPE) is an innovative ultrasound-based method using contrast agents to assess the severity of portal hypertension (PH). This study aimed to evaluate the predictive value of the revised SHAPE method for diagnosing clinically significant PH (CSPH; hepatic venous pressure gradient [HVPG] ≥ 10 mmHg). This cross-sectional study included 62 patients with chronic liver disease who underwent HVPG, liver stiffness, and spleen stiffness (SSM) measurements. Cutoff values for high sensitivity and specificity were derived to rule in CSPH. The SHAPE gradient showed a strong correlation with HVPG (r = 0.74, p < 0.01). Patients with CSPH had a significantly higher SHAPE gradient than those without CSPH (- 1.6 dB versus - 5.1 dB; p < 0.01). The optimal cutoff value was - 2.7 dB; the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 92%, 87%, 81%, and 94%, respectively. The AUC value for predicting CSPH was 0.94 for the SHAPE method, compared with 0.76 for Baveno VII, 0.78 for the Baveno VII-SSM dual method, and 0.81 for the single-cutoff algorithm. The revised SHAPE method is a highly accurate, non-invasive tool for assessing HVPG and predicting CSPH in clinical practice, offering a potential alternative to current invasive measures.
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.