ReviewCureus2022
Accuracy of Ultrasonography vs. Elastography in Patients With Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comment on "Comparison of diagnostic criteria for fatty liver disease in assessing cardiac dysfunction: a cross-sectional study".Hepatology international · 2026Article
- Applicability of attenuation imaging and shear wave elastography in non-invasive assessment of liver steatosis and fibrosis in adult patients.Polish journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease and pregnancy.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2025Review
- Pediatric endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy: 3-year experience.Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition · 2025Article
- Article
- Clinical Predictive Score for Identifying Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease in Individuals with Prediabetes Using Transient Elastography.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ultrasonography and elastography are the most widely used imaging modalities for diagnosing non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. This study aimed to assess and compare the diagnostic accuracy in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease/non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. This systematic review was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A systematic search was done for the past seven years using Pubmed, Pubmed Central, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases on Jun 29, 2022. Studies were included based on the following predefined criteria: observational studies, randomized controlled trial (RCT), comparative studies, studies using liver biopsy or MRI proton density fat fraction (MRI PDFF) as a reference standard, ultrasonography, and elastography with measures of their diagnostic accuracy like sensitivity (SN), specificity (SP), area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve, and English language. The data were extracted on a predefined template. The final twelve eligible studies were assessed using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy tool (QUADS-2). Most studies focused on elastography techniques, and the remaining focused on quantitative ultrasonography methods like the controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) and attenuation coefficient (AC). Only one study was available for the evaluation of qualitative ultrasonography. MRI was generally found superior to other diagnostic tests for determining liver stiffness through magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) and steatosis through MRI PDFF. Data assessing the comparative diagnostic accuracy of the two tests were inconclusive.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.