Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41310515›Full record

SynthesisBMC gastroenterology2025

Diagnostic value of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI versus contrast-enhanced CT for detecting liver metastasis in colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Shuting Chen, Min Wen, Fangbiao Lv, Lifen Yan, Xiangtian Zhao, Changhong Liang

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Shuting ChenDepartment of Radiology, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences), Southern Medical University, 106 Zhongshan Er Road, Guangzhou, 510080, China.
Min WenSouthern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Fangbiao LvSouth China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China.
Lifen YanDepartment of Radiology, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences), Southern Medical University, 106 Zhongshan Er Road, Guangzhou, 510080, China.
Xiangtian ZhaoDepartment of Radiology, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences), Southern Medical University, 106 Zhongshan Er Road, Guangzhou, 510080, China.
Changhong LiangDepartment of Radiology, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences), Southern Medical University, 106 Zhongshan Er Road, Guangzhou, 510080, China. liangchanghong@gdph.org.cn.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 82102145National Natural Science Foundation of China 82102147National Natural Science Foundation of China 82202095National Natural Science Foundation of China 82271941
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo compare the diagnostic accuracy of gadoxetate disodium enhanced MRI (EOB-MRI) and contrast-enhanced CT (CE-CT) in the detection of colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM).

methodsWe conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, web of science, and the Cochrane Library up to 4 November 2025, to identify original studies comparing the accuracy of EOB-MRI with CE-CT in diagnosing CRLM. Pooled sensitivity (SEN) and specificity (SPE) were calculated, and subgroup analyses were performed based on tumor diameter and ethnicity.

resultsA total of 1,842 patients from 15 studies diagnosed with colorectal cancer were included in the study. The pooled SEN of EOB-MRI was 90.0% [95% confidence interval (CI): 88.0%-92.0%], and the corresponding SPE was 88.0% (95% CI: 85.0%-90.0%). For CE-CT, the pooled SEN was 78.0% (95% CI: 75.0%-80.0%) and SPE was 90.0% (95% CI: 88.0%-92.0%). In subgroup analysis, 98.0% (95% CI: 97.0%-99.0%) of CRLM lesions with a diameter of more than 1 cm were detected by EOB-MRI, compared with 95.0% (95% CI: 93.0%-97.0%) for CE-CT, and only one study reported an SPE of 88.0% (95% CI: 79.0%-97.0%) for CE-CT. For CRLM lesions ≤ 1 cm in diameter, the pooled SEN of EOB-MRI was 89.0% (95% CI: 85.0%-93.0%) and 29% (95% CI: 21.0%-37.0%) for CE-CT, and only one study reported SPE for both EOB-MRI and CE-CT (88.0% (95% CI: 83.0%-93.0%) and 96.0% (95% CI: 93.0%-99.0%).

conclusionEOB-MRI is more sensitive than CE-CT for detecting CRLM, especially small lesions, and is recommended for clinical use to improve patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsContrast MediaGadolinium DTPALiver NeoplasmsMagnetic Resonance ImagingTomography, X-Ray ComputedHumansSensitivity and SpecificityContrast MediaGadolinium DTPAgadolinium ethoxybenzyl DTPAColorectal cancerContrast-enhanced CTGd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRILiver metastasis

Identifiers

PMID41310515
PMCPMC12751889

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.