Diagnostic accuracy of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System locoregional treatment response criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Objective There is increasing adoption of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) treatment response (LR-TR) criteria. However, there is still a relative lack of evidence evaluating the performance of these criteria. We performed this study to assess the diagnostic accuracy of LI-RADS LR-T...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | European radiology 2021-10, Vol.31 (10), p.7725-7733 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 7733 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 10 |
| container_start_page | 7725 |
| container_title | European radiology |
| container_volume | 31 |
| creator | Gupta, Pankaj Bansal, Akash Das, Gaurav Chayan Kumar-M, Praveen Chaluvashetty, Sreedhara B. Bhujade, Harish Gulati, Ajay Kalra, Naveen |
| description | Objective
There is increasing adoption of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) treatment response (LR-TR) criteria. However, there is still a relative lack of evidence evaluating the performance of these criteria. We performed this study to assess the diagnostic accuracy of LI-RADS LR-TR criteria.
Methods
A thorough search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies reporting diagnostic accuracy of LI-RADS LR-TR criteria was conducted through 30 June 2020. The meta-analytic summary of sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio of LI-RADS LR-TR criteria was computed using explant histopathology as the reference standard. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.
Results
Four studies were found eligible for meta-analysis. The total number of LR-TR observations was 462 (240 patients, 82.5% males). Different locoregional therapies (LRTs), including bland embolization, chemoembolization, radiofrequency ablation, and microwave ablation, had been used. The mean time interval between LRT and liver transplantation ranged from 181 to 219 days. There was a moderate to good inter-reader agreement for LR-TR criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of LR-TR criteria for viable disease were 62% (95% CI, 49–74%;
I
2
= 69%) and 87% (95% CI, 76–93%;
I
2
= 57%), respectively. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio and area under the curve were 9.83 (95% CI, 5.34–18.08;
I
2
= 19%) and 0.80.
Conclusions
LI-RADS LR-TR criteria have acceptable diagnostic performance for the diagnosis of viable tumor after LRT. Well-designed prospective studies evaluating criteria of equivocal lesions and effect of different LRTs should be performed.
Key Points
• The pooled sensitivity and specificity of LI-RADS LR-TR criteria for the diagnosis of viable tumor were 62% and 87%, respectively.
• The pooled diagnostic odds ratio and area under the curve were 9.83 and 0.80.
• LR-TR criteria had a moderate to good inter-reader agreement. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00330-021-07837-6 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2507667624</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2574558736</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-60b421d63f3bdb9c0b27a55aa59087067030a6635e0ece1ac4809b43545a5ee43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU1v1DAQhi0EokvhD3BAlrhwCYzjr4QbaqGttFKlAudo4p2NXCXxYjut9k_0N5PsFpB64DSW5nnfsfQw9lbARwFgPyUAKaGAUhRgK2kL84ythJJlIaBSz9kKalkVtq7VCXuV0i0A1ELZl-xESlsZo82KPZx77MaQsnccnZsiuj0PW772dxT51YCdHzt-Q7sQ8_LCccPPMSP_vk-ZBt4HFyJ1PozY8xwJ80Bj5pHSLoyJuIs-U_T4mSNPhwgupyLdebo_tA2UscA5vk8-vWYvttgnevM4T9nPb19_nF0W6-uLq7Mv68IpJXJhoFWl2Bi5le2mrR20pUWtEXUNlQVjQQIaIzUBORLoVAV1q6RWGjWRkqfsw7F3F8OviVJuBp8c9T2OFKbUlBqsMdaUC_r-CXobpjj_d6Gs0rqy0sxUeaRcDClF2ja76AeM-0ZAs9hqjraa2VZzsNUsoXeP1VM70OZv5I-eGZBHIM2rsaP47_Z_an8DPJ-hbQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2574558736</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Diagnostic accuracy of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System locoregional treatment response criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Gupta, Pankaj ; Bansal, Akash ; Das, Gaurav Chayan ; Kumar-M, Praveen ; Chaluvashetty, Sreedhara B. ; Bhujade, Harish ; Gulati, Ajay ; Kalra, Naveen</creator><creatorcontrib>Gupta, Pankaj ; Bansal, Akash ; Das, Gaurav Chayan ; Kumar-M, Praveen ; Chaluvashetty, Sreedhara B. ; Bhujade, Harish ; Gulati, Ajay ; Kalra, Naveen</creatorcontrib><description>Objective
There is increasing adoption of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) treatment response (LR-TR) criteria. However, there is still a relative lack of evidence evaluating the performance of these criteria. We performed this study to assess the diagnostic accuracy of LI-RADS LR-TR criteria.
Methods
A thorough search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies reporting diagnostic accuracy of LI-RADS LR-TR criteria was conducted through 30 June 2020. The meta-analytic summary of sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio of LI-RADS LR-TR criteria was computed using explant histopathology as the reference standard. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.
Results
Four studies were found eligible for meta-analysis. The total number of LR-TR observations was 462 (240 patients, 82.5% males). Different locoregional therapies (LRTs), including bland embolization, chemoembolization, radiofrequency ablation, and microwave ablation, had been used. The mean time interval between LRT and liver transplantation ranged from 181 to 219 days. There was a moderate to good inter-reader agreement for LR-TR criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of LR-TR criteria for viable disease were 62% (95% CI, 49–74%;
I
2
= 69%) and 87% (95% CI, 76–93%;
I
2
= 57%), respectively. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio and area under the curve were 9.83 (95% CI, 5.34–18.08;
I
2
= 19%) and 0.80.
Conclusions
LI-RADS LR-TR criteria have acceptable diagnostic performance for the diagnosis of viable tumor after LRT. Well-designed prospective studies evaluating criteria of equivocal lesions and effect of different LRTs should be performed.
Key Points
• The pooled sensitivity and specificity of LI-RADS LR-TR criteria for the diagnosis of viable tumor were 62% and 87%, respectively.
• The pooled diagnostic odds ratio and area under the curve were 9.83 and 0.80.
• LR-TR criteria had a moderate to good inter-reader agreement.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0938-7994</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-1084</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-07837-6</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33786656</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Ablation ; Accuracy ; Clinical trials ; Criteria ; Diagnosis ; Diagnostic Radiology ; Embolization ; Hepatobiliary-Pancreas ; Histopathology ; Imaging ; Internal Medicine ; Interventional Radiology ; Liver ; Liver cancer ; Liver transplantation ; Medical diagnosis ; Medical imaging ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Meta-analysis ; Neuroradiology ; Performance evaluation ; Quality assessment ; Quality control ; Radio frequency ; Radiology ; Sensitivity analysis ; Transplantation ; Tumors ; Ultrasound</subject><ispartof>European radiology, 2021-10, Vol.31 (10), p.7725-7733</ispartof><rights>European Society of Radiology 2021</rights><rights>European Society of Radiology 2021.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-60b421d63f3bdb9c0b27a55aa59087067030a6635e0ece1ac4809b43545a5ee43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-60b421d63f3bdb9c0b27a55aa59087067030a6635e0ece1ac4809b43545a5ee43</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00330-021-07837-6$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00330-021-07837-6$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33786656$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gupta, Pankaj</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bansal, Akash</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Das, Gaurav Chayan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kumar-M, Praveen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chaluvashetty, Sreedhara B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bhujade, Harish</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gulati, Ajay</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kalra, Naveen</creatorcontrib><title>Diagnostic accuracy of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System locoregional treatment response criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><title>European radiology</title><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><description>Objective
There is increasing adoption of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) treatment response (LR-TR) criteria. However, there is still a relative lack of evidence evaluating the performance of these criteria. We performed this study to assess the diagnostic accuracy of LI-RADS LR-TR criteria.
Methods
A thorough search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies reporting diagnostic accuracy of LI-RADS LR-TR criteria was conducted through 30 June 2020. The meta-analytic summary of sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio of LI-RADS LR-TR criteria was computed using explant histopathology as the reference standard. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.
Results
Four studies were found eligible for meta-analysis. The total number of LR-TR observations was 462 (240 patients, 82.5% males). Different locoregional therapies (LRTs), including bland embolization, chemoembolization, radiofrequency ablation, and microwave ablation, had been used. The mean time interval between LRT and liver transplantation ranged from 181 to 219 days. There was a moderate to good inter-reader agreement for LR-TR criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of LR-TR criteria for viable disease were 62% (95% CI, 49–74%;
I
2
= 69%) and 87% (95% CI, 76–93%;
I
2
= 57%), respectively. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio and area under the curve were 9.83 (95% CI, 5.34–18.08;
I
2
= 19%) and 0.80.
Conclusions
LI-RADS LR-TR criteria have acceptable diagnostic performance for the diagnosis of viable tumor after LRT. Well-designed prospective studies evaluating criteria of equivocal lesions and effect of different LRTs should be performed.
Key Points
• The pooled sensitivity and specificity of LI-RADS LR-TR criteria for the diagnosis of viable tumor were 62% and 87%, respectively.
• The pooled diagnostic odds ratio and area under the curve were 9.83 and 0.80.
• LR-TR criteria had a moderate to good inter-reader agreement.</description><subject>Ablation</subject><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Criteria</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>Diagnostic Radiology</subject><subject>Embolization</subject><subject>Hepatobiliary-Pancreas</subject><subject>Histopathology</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Interventional Radiology</subject><subject>Liver</subject><subject>Liver cancer</subject><subject>Liver transplantation</subject><subject>Medical diagnosis</subject><subject>Medical imaging</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Neuroradiology</subject><subject>Performance evaluation</subject><subject>Quality assessment</subject><subject>Quality control</subject><subject>Radio frequency</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Sensitivity analysis</subject><subject>Transplantation</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><issn>0938-7994</issn><issn>1432-1084</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU1v1DAQhi0EokvhD3BAlrhwCYzjr4QbaqGttFKlAudo4p2NXCXxYjut9k_0N5PsFpB64DSW5nnfsfQw9lbARwFgPyUAKaGAUhRgK2kL84ythJJlIaBSz9kKalkVtq7VCXuV0i0A1ELZl-xESlsZo82KPZx77MaQsnccnZsiuj0PW772dxT51YCdHzt-Q7sQ8_LCccPPMSP_vk-ZBt4HFyJ1PozY8xwJ80Bj5pHSLoyJuIs-U_T4mSNPhwgupyLdebo_tA2UscA5vk8-vWYvttgnevM4T9nPb19_nF0W6-uLq7Mv68IpJXJhoFWl2Bi5le2mrR20pUWtEXUNlQVjQQIaIzUBORLoVAV1q6RWGjWRkqfsw7F3F8OviVJuBp8c9T2OFKbUlBqsMdaUC_r-CXobpjj_d6Gs0rqy0sxUeaRcDClF2ja76AeM-0ZAs9hqjraa2VZzsNUsoXeP1VM70OZv5I-eGZBHIM2rsaP47_Z_an8DPJ-hbQ</recordid><startdate>20211001</startdate><enddate>20211001</enddate><creator>Gupta, Pankaj</creator><creator>Bansal, Akash</creator><creator>Das, Gaurav Chayan</creator><creator>Kumar-M, Praveen</creator><creator>Chaluvashetty, Sreedhara B.</creator><creator>Bhujade, Harish</creator><creator>Gulati, Ajay</creator><creator>Kalra, Naveen</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20211001</creationdate><title>Diagnostic accuracy of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System locoregional treatment response criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><author>Gupta, Pankaj ; Bansal, Akash ; Das, Gaurav Chayan ; Kumar-M, Praveen ; Chaluvashetty, Sreedhara B. ; Bhujade, Harish ; Gulati, Ajay ; Kalra, Naveen</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-60b421d63f3bdb9c0b27a55aa59087067030a6635e0ece1ac4809b43545a5ee43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Ablation</topic><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Criteria</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>Diagnostic Radiology</topic><topic>Embolization</topic><topic>Hepatobiliary-Pancreas</topic><topic>Histopathology</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Interventional Radiology</topic><topic>Liver</topic><topic>Liver cancer</topic><topic>Liver transplantation</topic><topic>Medical diagnosis</topic><topic>Medical imaging</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Neuroradiology</topic><topic>Performance evaluation</topic><topic>Quality assessment</topic><topic>Quality control</topic><topic>Radio frequency</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Sensitivity analysis</topic><topic>Transplantation</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gupta, Pankaj</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bansal, Akash</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Das, Gaurav Chayan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kumar-M, Praveen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chaluvashetty, Sreedhara B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bhujade, Harish</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gulati, Ajay</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kalra, Naveen</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gupta, Pankaj</au><au>Bansal, Akash</au><au>Das, Gaurav Chayan</au><au>Kumar-M, Praveen</au><au>Chaluvashetty, Sreedhara B.</au><au>Bhujade, Harish</au><au>Gulati, Ajay</au><au>Kalra, Naveen</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Diagnostic accuracy of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System locoregional treatment response criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle><stitle>Eur Radiol</stitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><date>2021-10-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>31</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>7725</spage><epage>7733</epage><pages>7725-7733</pages><issn>0938-7994</issn><eissn>1432-1084</eissn><abstract>Objective
There is increasing adoption of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) treatment response (LR-TR) criteria. However, there is still a relative lack of evidence evaluating the performance of these criteria. We performed this study to assess the diagnostic accuracy of LI-RADS LR-TR criteria.
Methods
A thorough search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies reporting diagnostic accuracy of LI-RADS LR-TR criteria was conducted through 30 June 2020. The meta-analytic summary of sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio of LI-RADS LR-TR criteria was computed using explant histopathology as the reference standard. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.
Results
Four studies were found eligible for meta-analysis. The total number of LR-TR observations was 462 (240 patients, 82.5% males). Different locoregional therapies (LRTs), including bland embolization, chemoembolization, radiofrequency ablation, and microwave ablation, had been used. The mean time interval between LRT and liver transplantation ranged from 181 to 219 days. There was a moderate to good inter-reader agreement for LR-TR criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of LR-TR criteria for viable disease were 62% (95% CI, 49–74%;
I
2
= 69%) and 87% (95% CI, 76–93%;
I
2
= 57%), respectively. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio and area under the curve were 9.83 (95% CI, 5.34–18.08;
I
2
= 19%) and 0.80.
Conclusions
LI-RADS LR-TR criteria have acceptable diagnostic performance for the diagnosis of viable tumor after LRT. Well-designed prospective studies evaluating criteria of equivocal lesions and effect of different LRTs should be performed.
Key Points
• The pooled sensitivity and specificity of LI-RADS LR-TR criteria for the diagnosis of viable tumor were 62% and 87%, respectively.
• The pooled diagnostic odds ratio and area under the curve were 9.83 and 0.80.
• LR-TR criteria had a moderate to good inter-reader agreement.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>33786656</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00330-021-07837-6</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0938-7994 |
| ispartof | European radiology, 2021-10, Vol.31 (10), p.7725-7733 |
| issn | 0938-7994 1432-1084 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2507667624 |
| source | SpringerLink Journals |
| subjects | Ablation Accuracy Clinical trials Criteria Diagnosis Diagnostic Radiology Embolization Hepatobiliary-Pancreas Histopathology Imaging Internal Medicine Interventional Radiology Liver Liver cancer Liver transplantation Medical diagnosis Medical imaging Medicine Medicine & Public Health Meta-analysis Neuroradiology Performance evaluation Quality assessment Quality control Radio frequency Radiology Sensitivity analysis Transplantation Tumors Ultrasound |
| title | Diagnostic accuracy of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System locoregional treatment response criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T01%3A29%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Diagnostic%20accuracy%20of%20Liver%20Imaging%20Reporting%20and%20Data%20System%20locoregional%20treatment%20response%20criteria:%20a%20systematic%20review%20and%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=European%20radiology&rft.au=Gupta,%20Pankaj&rft.date=2021-10-01&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=7725&rft.epage=7733&rft.pages=7725-7733&rft.issn=0938-7994&rft.eissn=1432-1084&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00330-021-07837-6&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2574558736%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2574558736&rft_id=info:pmid/33786656&rfr_iscdi=true |