SynthesisAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Performance of CEUS LI-RADS v2017 major feature combinations: individual patient data meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Abdominal radiology (New York), 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
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe LI-RADS diagnostic algorithm uses imaging features in contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) to standardize the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in at-risk patients. However, the diagnostic performance of specific major feature combinations has not been comprehensively evaluated. PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of CEUS LI-RADs version 2017 major feature combinations for (HCC) in at-risk individuals across LI-RADS categories 3-5. MATERIALS AND
methodsA living systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis was conducted, including studies using CEUS LI-RADS v2016 or v2017 in at-risk patients, identified through database searches updated to February 2024. Eligible observations were categorized per LI-RADS guidelines, and PPVs for HCC were calculated for all major feature combinations in LI-RADS categories 3-5 using a random-effects one-step model. Risk of bias was assessed independently using a customized QUADAS-2 tool.
resultsThirteen studies were included, comprising 1575 patients (mean age, 62.8 ± 11.2 years; 79.3% male) with 1594 liver observations (median size, 37.1 mm). Pooled PPVs for HCC increased with higher CEUS LI-RADS v2017 categories: LR-3, 40.4% (95% CI: 27.2-55.1); LR-4, 69.7% (95% CI: 49.7-84.3); and LR-5, 95.1% (95% CI: 90.2-97.6). Major feature combinations did not differ from others within the same category. Most studies were at moderate to high risk of bias, primarily due to retrospective design, but sensitivity analysis restricted to low-risk observations yielded similar findings.
conclusionCEUS LI-RADS demonstrated progressively higher PPVs from LR-3 to LR-5, supporting its ability to stratify risk across HCC categories. Major feature combinations performed similarly within each category, indicating internal consistency of the system. Although only PPVs were assessed, the results align with trends seen in CT/MRI LI-RADS, with wider confidence intervals in CEUS reflecting smaller sample sizes.
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.