Evidence mapPaperPMID 26314479Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2016

Magnetic resonance elastography for staging liver fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a diagnostic accuracy systematic review and individual participant data pooled analysis.

Siddharth Singh, Sudhakar K Venkatesh, Rohit Loomba, Zhen Wang, Claude Sirlin, Jun Chen, Meng Yin, Frank H Miller, Russell N Low, Tarek Hassanein and 6 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 140 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
140citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
14.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

140 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 243 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Guideline
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Imaging Evaluation for Steatotic Liver Disease.Korean journal of radiology · 2026
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

80 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

16 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Siddharth SinghDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Sudhakar K VenkateshDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. Venkatesh.Sudhakar@mayo.edu.
Rohit LoombaNAFLD Translational Research Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
Zhen WangRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Claude SirlinLiver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
Jun ChenDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Meng YinDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Frank H MillerDepartment of Radiology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Russell N LowSharp and Children's MRI Center, San Diego, CA, USA.
Tarek HassaneinLiver Centers of Southern California, Coronado, CA, USA.
Edmund M GodfreyDepartment of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
Patrick AsbachDepartment of Radiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charité Campus Mitte, Berlin, Germany.
Mohammad Hassan MuradRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
David J LomasDepartment of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
Jayant A TalwalkarDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Richard L EhmanDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Mayo Clinic in Arizona · USAddenbrooke's Hospital · GBUniversity of California, San Diego · USCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DENorthwestern University · USRady Children's Hospital-San Diego · US

Funding

Magnetic Resonance ElastographyR37EB001981 · NIBIB · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · 2022 to 2025
$1.6M
Magnetic Resonance ElastographyR01EB001981 · MAYO CLINIC COLL OF MEDICINE, ROCHESTER · 2003 to 2005
$1.1M
Comprehensive noninvasive assessment of liver histopathology in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) via magnetic resonance imaging, cytometry and elastography (MR-ICE)R01EB017197 · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · 2025 to 2025
$358k
NIBIB NIH HHS EB001981NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB001981NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB017197NIBIB NIH HHS R37 EB001981NIDDK NIH HHS K23 DK090303NIDDK NIH HHS K23-DK090303-04
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe conducted an individual participant data (IPD) pooled analysis on diagnostic accuracy of MRE to detect fibrosis stage in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).

methodsThrough a systematic literature search, we identified studies of MRE (at 60-62.5 Hz) for staging fibrosis in patients with NAFLD, using liver biopsy as gold standard, and contacted study authors for IPD. Through pooled analysis, we calculated the cluster-adjusted AUROC, sensitivity and specificity of MRE for any (≥stage 1), significant (≥stage 2) and advanced (≥stage 3) fibrosis and cirrhosis (stage 4).

resultsWe included nine studies with 232 patients with NAFLD (mean age, 51 ± 13 years; 37.5% males; mean BMI, 33.5 ± 6.7 kg/m(2); interval between MRE and biopsy <1 year, 98.3%). Fibrosis stage distribution (stage 0/1/2/3/4) was 33.6, 32.3, 10.8, 12.9 and 10.4%, respectively. Mean AUROC (and 95% CIs) for diagnosis of any, significant or advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis was 0.86 (0.82-0.90), 0.87 (0.82-0.93), 0.90 (0.84-0.94) and 0.91 (0.76-0.95), respectively. Similar diagnostic performance was observed in stratified analysis based on sex, obesity and degree of inflammation.

conclusionsMRE has high diagnostic accuracy for detection of fibrosis in NAFLD, independent of BMI and degree of inflammation. KEY POINTS: • MRE has high diagnostic accuracy for detection of fibrosis in NAFLD. • BMI does not significantly affect accuracy of MRE in NAFLD. • Inflammation had no significant influence on MRE performance in NAFLD for fibrosis.

Indexed as

BiopsyElasticity Imaging TechniquesFemaleHepatitisHumansLiverLiver CirrhosisMaleMiddle AgedNon-alcoholic Fatty Liver DiseaseObesitySensitivity and SpecificityBiomarkerCirrhosisDiagnostic performanceElastographyFibrosis

Identifiers

PMID26314479
PMCPMC5051267
OpenAlexW1917816261

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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 Socratic graph.