ArticleHepatology forum2026
Endoscopic ultrasound strain elastography in MASLD: Evaluation against transient elastography and non-invasive markers.
Article in Hepatology forum, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 Aim: Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is a global health concern. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) combines multiple diagnostic modalities, including elastography. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of EUS strain elastography parameters in patients with MASLD, compared with vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) and non-invasive markers. Materials and Methods: A total of 75 adults with MASLD underwent EUS strain elastography. Controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) and liver stiffness measurement (LSM) were measured by VCTE. Assessments of non-invasive biomarkers, including the fibrosis index based on six parameters (FIB-6) and fatty liver index (FLI), were conducted. Results: The liver strain histogram (SH) standard deviation (SD) could diagnose steatosis when referenced by CAP, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.707 (p=0.029). Both liver SH SD (AUROC=0.883, p<0.001) and liver SH mode percentage (Mode%) (AUROC=0.836, p<0.001) could diagnose steatosis when referenced by FLI (FLI ≥30). The liver strain ratio (SR) could diagnose advanced fibrosis (rule-in stage ≥F3) when referenced by LSM, yielding an AUROC of 0.677 and p=0.048. Liver SR (AUROC=0.707, p=0.002) and liver SH Mode% (AUROC=0.725, p<0.001) could diagnose significant fibrosis (stage ≥F2) when referenced by FIB-6 (FIB-6 ≥2.003). Conclusion: SH SD shows potential for detecting steatosis, and SR with SH Mode% could be indicative of fibrosis (significant and advanced). However, further biopsy-based studies are needed.
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.