ArticleAlimentary pharmacology & therapeutics2024
Repeatability of vibration-controlled transient elastography versus magnetic resonance elastography in patients with cirrhosis: A prospective study.
Article in Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimized MASH treatment eligibility cutoffs for MRE-measured liver stiffness and proton density fat fraction.Clinical and molecular hepatology · 2026Article
- Fully automated frame selection and region-of-interest placement in 2D shear wave elastography: reduced examination time with comparable reproducibility in diffuse liver disease.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2026Article
- Liver stiffness progression in biopsy-proven metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic disease among people with diabetes versus people without diabetes: A prospective multicenter study.Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.) · 2025Article
- Cholate Shunt, Oral Cholate Challenge and Endoscopic Lesions of Portal Hypertension: The SHUNT-V Study.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsMagnetic resonance elastography (MRE) and vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) have the potential to assess disease progression; however, repeatability data in people with cirrhosis are lacking. We aimed to assess the effect of disease severity on measurement variability and contribute to the evidentiary basis for the qualification of repeating liver stiffness measurements (LSM) in practice and research.
methodsThis prospective study included 49 adult participants (58.3% female) with cirrhosis who underwent same-day repeat LSM examinations. The primary outcome was the same-day, same-operator repeatability coefficient% (RC%) and the within-case coefficient of variation (wCV) for each modality. Secondary outcomes include the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). The relationship between measurement variability (interquartile for VCTE, standard deviation for MRE) and disease severity (mean liver stiffness) was evaluated by linear regression with the coefficient of determination R
resultsSame-day repeat MRE and VCTE exams were prospectively conducted in 33 and 45 participants, respectively. The RC% appeared 82% higher for VCTE versus MRE (38% vs. 21%), with consistent findings in head-to-head analyses. The wCV for VCTE and MRE was 14% and 8% respectively, indicating VCTE has 75% higher within-subject measurement variation than MRE. ICC was excellent for LSM by VCTE (0.92) and MRE (0.96). Measurement variability increased with mean liver stiffness for VCTE (R
conclusionBoth VCTE and MRE demonstrated increased measurement variability with disease severity. However, MRE outperformed VCTE in terms of technical repeatability in patients with cirrhosis. These repeatability estimates may improve the qualification of NITs in practice.
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.