Clinical usefulness of multiple arterial-phase images in gadoxetate disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Objectives The multiple arterial-phase (AP) technique was introduced for liver MRI, but it is not really known if multiple AP MRI (MA-MRI) improves image quality and lesion detection rate on gadoxetate disodium–enhanced MRI in comparison with single AP MRI (SA-MRI). We aimed to determine the clinica...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | European radiology 2022-08, Vol.32 (8), p.5413-5423 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 5423 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 8 |
| container_start_page | 5413 |
| container_title | European radiology |
| container_volume | 32 |
| creator | Hong, Sun Choi, Sang Hyun Hong, Seung Baek Kim, So Yeon Lee, Seung Soo |
| description | Objectives
The multiple arterial-phase (AP) technique was introduced for liver MRI, but it is not really known if multiple AP MRI (MA-MRI) improves image quality and lesion detection rate on gadoxetate disodium–enhanced MRI in comparison with single AP MRI (SA-MRI). We aimed to determine the clinical usefulness of MA-MRI in comparison with SA-MRI.
Methods
Original articles reporting the percentage of adequate AP imaging and the lesion detection rate on gadoxetate disodium–enhanced MA-MRI were identified in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. The pooled percentage of adequate AP imaging and lesion detection rate were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis of single proportions. Subgroup analysis was performed to explain causes of study heterogeneity, and publication bias was evaluated using Egger’s test.
Results
Of 772 articles screened, 22 studies in 12 articles were included: 18 studies (ten MA-MRI and eight SA-MRI) suitably defined the percentage of adequate AP imaging and four (three MA-MRI and one SA-MRI) defined the lesion detection rate. MA-MRI had 16.1% higher pooled percentage of adequate AP imaging than SA-MRI (94.8% vs. 78.7%,
p
< 0.01). MA-MRI additionally detected 33.2% of lesions than SA-MRI (83.2% vs. 50.0%,
p
= 0.06). Substantial study heterogeneity was found in MA-MRI, and the definition of adequate AP imaging, lesion characteristics, and reference standards were significant factors affecting study heterogeneity (
p
≤ 0.02). Significant publication bias was found in MA-MRI (
p
< 0.01) but not in SA-MRI studies (
p
= 0.87).
Conclusions
Gadoxetate disodium–enhanced MA-MRI may be more clinically useful than SA-MRI, but further study is necessary to validate this finding because of study heterogeneity and publication bias.
Key Points
• Multiple arterial-phase MRI (MA-MRI) had a 16.1% higher pooled percentage of adequate AP imaging than single arterial-phase MRI (SA-MRI) (94.8% vs. 78.7%, p < 0.01).
• MA-MRI additionally detected an extra 33.2% of lesions compared with SA-MRI (83.2% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.06).
• Substantial study heterogeneity and significant publication bias were found across MA-MRI studies. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00330-022-08620-x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2631863959</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2631863959</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-21fd9c5209b6be7ac51438e7c76349b5638cea463586f7203164b55901256dae3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kctu1DAUhiMEoqXwAiyQJTZsDL7EjsMOjYBWqtRNu7Yc52TqynEGnwRmnoTXxdOUi1h05cv5_v_4-K-q15y954w1H5AxKRllQlBmtGB0_6Q65bUUlDNTP_1nf1K9QLxjjLW8bp5XJ1LxVpTTafVzE0MK3kWyIAxLTIBIpoGMS5zDLgJxeYYcXKS7W4dAwui2gCQksnX9tIfZzUD6gFMflpFCunXJQ08KlWAOnmTAKR3v7pUhbT8SR_CAM4xurX8P8IO4VDTFjLrk4gEDvqyeDS4ivHpYz6qbL5-vN-f08urrxebTJfWyUTMVfOhbrwRrO91B47wqMxtofKNl3XZKS-PB1Voqo4dGMMl13SnVMi6U7h3Is-rd6rvL07cFcLZjQA8xugTTglZoyY2WrWoL-vY_9G5acnnvkTKm0aZ8d6HESvk8IWYY7C6X0fPBcmaPsdk1Nltis_ex2X0RvXmwXroR-j-S3zkVQK4AllLaQv7b-xHbX8bOpWI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2688768432</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Clinical usefulness of multiple arterial-phase images in gadoxetate disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Hong, Sun ; Choi, Sang Hyun ; Hong, Seung Baek ; Kim, So Yeon ; Lee, Seung Soo</creator><creatorcontrib>Hong, Sun ; Choi, Sang Hyun ; Hong, Seung Baek ; Kim, So Yeon ; Lee, Seung Soo</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives
The multiple arterial-phase (AP) technique was introduced for liver MRI, but it is not really known if multiple AP MRI (MA-MRI) improves image quality and lesion detection rate on gadoxetate disodium–enhanced MRI in comparison with single AP MRI (SA-MRI). We aimed to determine the clinical usefulness of MA-MRI in comparison with SA-MRI.
Methods
Original articles reporting the percentage of adequate AP imaging and the lesion detection rate on gadoxetate disodium–enhanced MA-MRI were identified in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. The pooled percentage of adequate AP imaging and lesion detection rate were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis of single proportions. Subgroup analysis was performed to explain causes of study heterogeneity, and publication bias was evaluated using Egger’s test.
Results
Of 772 articles screened, 22 studies in 12 articles were included: 18 studies (ten MA-MRI and eight SA-MRI) suitably defined the percentage of adequate AP imaging and four (three MA-MRI and one SA-MRI) defined the lesion detection rate. MA-MRI had 16.1% higher pooled percentage of adequate AP imaging than SA-MRI (94.8% vs. 78.7%,
p
< 0.01). MA-MRI additionally detected 33.2% of lesions than SA-MRI (83.2% vs. 50.0%,
p
= 0.06). Substantial study heterogeneity was found in MA-MRI, and the definition of adequate AP imaging, lesion characteristics, and reference standards were significant factors affecting study heterogeneity (
p
≤ 0.02). Significant publication bias was found in MA-MRI (
p
< 0.01) but not in SA-MRI studies (
p
= 0.87).
Conclusions
Gadoxetate disodium–enhanced MA-MRI may be more clinically useful than SA-MRI, but further study is necessary to validate this finding because of study heterogeneity and publication bias.
Key Points
• Multiple arterial-phase MRI (MA-MRI) had a 16.1% higher pooled percentage of adequate AP imaging than single arterial-phase MRI (SA-MRI) (94.8% vs. 78.7%, p < 0.01).
• MA-MRI additionally detected an extra 33.2% of lesions compared with SA-MRI (83.2% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.06).
• Substantial study heterogeneity and significant publication bias were found across MA-MRI studies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1432-1084</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0938-7994</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-1084</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00330-022-08620-x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35192009</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Bias ; Diagnostic Radiology ; Heterogeneity ; Image enhancement ; Image quality ; Imaging ; Internal Medicine ; Interventional Radiology ; Lesions ; Magnetic Resonance ; Magnetic resonance imaging ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Meta-analysis ; Neuroradiology ; Radiology ; Subgroups ; Ultrasound</subject><ispartof>European radiology, 2022-08, Vol.32 (8), p.5413-5423</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology 2022</rights><rights>2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology.</rights><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology 2022.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-21fd9c5209b6be7ac51438e7c76349b5638cea463586f7203164b55901256dae3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-21fd9c5209b6be7ac51438e7c76349b5638cea463586f7203164b55901256dae3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6898-6617</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00330-022-08620-x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00330-022-08620-x$$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/35192009$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hong, Sun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Choi, Sang Hyun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hong, Seung Baek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, So Yeon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Seung Soo</creatorcontrib><title>Clinical usefulness of multiple arterial-phase images in gadoxetate disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><title>European radiology</title><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><description>Objectives
The multiple arterial-phase (AP) technique was introduced for liver MRI, but it is not really known if multiple AP MRI (MA-MRI) improves image quality and lesion detection rate on gadoxetate disodium–enhanced MRI in comparison with single AP MRI (SA-MRI). We aimed to determine the clinical usefulness of MA-MRI in comparison with SA-MRI.
Methods
Original articles reporting the percentage of adequate AP imaging and the lesion detection rate on gadoxetate disodium–enhanced MA-MRI were identified in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. The pooled percentage of adequate AP imaging and lesion detection rate were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis of single proportions. Subgroup analysis was performed to explain causes of study heterogeneity, and publication bias was evaluated using Egger’s test.
Results
Of 772 articles screened, 22 studies in 12 articles were included: 18 studies (ten MA-MRI and eight SA-MRI) suitably defined the percentage of adequate AP imaging and four (three MA-MRI and one SA-MRI) defined the lesion detection rate. MA-MRI had 16.1% higher pooled percentage of adequate AP imaging than SA-MRI (94.8% vs. 78.7%,
p
< 0.01). MA-MRI additionally detected 33.2% of lesions than SA-MRI (83.2% vs. 50.0%,
p
= 0.06). Substantial study heterogeneity was found in MA-MRI, and the definition of adequate AP imaging, lesion characteristics, and reference standards were significant factors affecting study heterogeneity (
p
≤ 0.02). Significant publication bias was found in MA-MRI (
p
< 0.01) but not in SA-MRI studies (
p
= 0.87).
Conclusions
Gadoxetate disodium–enhanced MA-MRI may be more clinically useful than SA-MRI, but further study is necessary to validate this finding because of study heterogeneity and publication bias.
Key Points
• Multiple arterial-phase MRI (MA-MRI) had a 16.1% higher pooled percentage of adequate AP imaging than single arterial-phase MRI (SA-MRI) (94.8% vs. 78.7%, p < 0.01).
• MA-MRI additionally detected an extra 33.2% of lesions compared with SA-MRI (83.2% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.06).
• Substantial study heterogeneity and significant publication bias were found across MA-MRI studies.</description><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Diagnostic Radiology</subject><subject>Heterogeneity</subject><subject>Image enhancement</subject><subject>Image quality</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Interventional Radiology</subject><subject>Lesions</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance</subject><subject>Magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Neuroradiology</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Subgroups</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><issn>1432-1084</issn><issn>0938-7994</issn><issn>1432-1084</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kctu1DAUhiMEoqXwAiyQJTZsDL7EjsMOjYBWqtRNu7Yc52TqynEGnwRmnoTXxdOUi1h05cv5_v_4-K-q15y954w1H5AxKRllQlBmtGB0_6Q65bUUlDNTP_1nf1K9QLxjjLW8bp5XJ1LxVpTTafVzE0MK3kWyIAxLTIBIpoGMS5zDLgJxeYYcXKS7W4dAwui2gCQksnX9tIfZzUD6gFMflpFCunXJQ08KlWAOnmTAKR3v7pUhbT8SR_CAM4xurX8P8IO4VDTFjLrk4gEDvqyeDS4ivHpYz6qbL5-vN-f08urrxebTJfWyUTMVfOhbrwRrO91B47wqMxtofKNl3XZKS-PB1Voqo4dGMMl13SnVMi6U7h3Is-rd6rvL07cFcLZjQA8xugTTglZoyY2WrWoL-vY_9G5acnnvkTKm0aZ8d6HESvk8IWYY7C6X0fPBcmaPsdk1Nltis_ex2X0RvXmwXroR-j-S3zkVQK4AllLaQv7b-xHbX8bOpWI</recordid><startdate>20220801</startdate><enddate>20220801</enddate><creator>Hong, Sun</creator><creator>Choi, Sang Hyun</creator><creator>Hong, Seung Baek</creator><creator>Kim, So Yeon</creator><creator>Lee, Seung Soo</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><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6898-6617</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220801</creationdate><title>Clinical usefulness of multiple arterial-phase images in gadoxetate disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><author>Hong, Sun ; Choi, Sang Hyun ; Hong, Seung Baek ; Kim, So Yeon ; Lee, Seung Soo</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-21fd9c5209b6be7ac51438e7c76349b5638cea463586f7203164b55901256dae3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Diagnostic Radiology</topic><topic>Heterogeneity</topic><topic>Image enhancement</topic><topic>Image quality</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Interventional Radiology</topic><topic>Lesions</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance</topic><topic>Magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Neuroradiology</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Subgroups</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hong, Sun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Choi, Sang Hyun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hong, Seung Baek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, So Yeon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Seung Soo</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Health and Medical</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>ProQuest Biological Science Journals</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>Hong, Sun</au><au>Choi, Sang Hyun</au><au>Hong, Seung Baek</au><au>Kim, So Yeon</au><au>Lee, Seung Soo</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Clinical usefulness of multiple arterial-phase images in gadoxetate disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle><stitle>Eur Radiol</stitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><date>2022-08-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>5413</spage><epage>5423</epage><pages>5413-5423</pages><issn>1432-1084</issn><issn>0938-7994</issn><eissn>1432-1084</eissn><abstract>Objectives
The multiple arterial-phase (AP) technique was introduced for liver MRI, but it is not really known if multiple AP MRI (MA-MRI) improves image quality and lesion detection rate on gadoxetate disodium–enhanced MRI in comparison with single AP MRI (SA-MRI). We aimed to determine the clinical usefulness of MA-MRI in comparison with SA-MRI.
Methods
Original articles reporting the percentage of adequate AP imaging and the lesion detection rate on gadoxetate disodium–enhanced MA-MRI were identified in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. The pooled percentage of adequate AP imaging and lesion detection rate were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis of single proportions. Subgroup analysis was performed to explain causes of study heterogeneity, and publication bias was evaluated using Egger’s test.
Results
Of 772 articles screened, 22 studies in 12 articles were included: 18 studies (ten MA-MRI and eight SA-MRI) suitably defined the percentage of adequate AP imaging and four (three MA-MRI and one SA-MRI) defined the lesion detection rate. MA-MRI had 16.1% higher pooled percentage of adequate AP imaging than SA-MRI (94.8% vs. 78.7%,
p
< 0.01). MA-MRI additionally detected 33.2% of lesions than SA-MRI (83.2% vs. 50.0%,
p
= 0.06). Substantial study heterogeneity was found in MA-MRI, and the definition of adequate AP imaging, lesion characteristics, and reference standards were significant factors affecting study heterogeneity (
p
≤ 0.02). Significant publication bias was found in MA-MRI (
p
< 0.01) but not in SA-MRI studies (
p
= 0.87).
Conclusions
Gadoxetate disodium–enhanced MA-MRI may be more clinically useful than SA-MRI, but further study is necessary to validate this finding because of study heterogeneity and publication bias.
Key Points
• Multiple arterial-phase MRI (MA-MRI) had a 16.1% higher pooled percentage of adequate AP imaging than single arterial-phase MRI (SA-MRI) (94.8% vs. 78.7%, p < 0.01).
• MA-MRI additionally detected an extra 33.2% of lesions compared with SA-MRI (83.2% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.06).
• Substantial study heterogeneity and significant publication bias were found across MA-MRI studies.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>35192009</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00330-022-08620-x</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6898-6617</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1432-1084 |
| ispartof | European radiology, 2022-08, Vol.32 (8), p.5413-5423 |
| issn | 1432-1084 0938-7994 1432-1084 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2631863959 |
| source | SpringerLink Journals |
| subjects | Bias Diagnostic Radiology Heterogeneity Image enhancement Image quality Imaging Internal Medicine Interventional Radiology Lesions Magnetic Resonance Magnetic resonance imaging Medicine Medicine & Public Health Meta-analysis Neuroradiology Radiology Subgroups Ultrasound |
| title | Clinical usefulness of multiple arterial-phase images in gadoxetate disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: 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=2025-02-15T00%3A32%3A20IST&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=Clinical%20usefulness%20of%20multiple%20arterial-phase%20images%20in%20gadoxetate%20disodium-enhanced%20magnetic%20resonance%20imaging:%20a%20systematic%20review%20and%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=European%20radiology&rft.au=Hong,%20Sun&rft.date=2022-08-01&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=5413&rft.epage=5423&rft.pages=5413-5423&rft.issn=1432-1084&rft.eissn=1432-1084&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00330-022-08620-x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2631863959%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=2688768432&rft_id=info:pmid/35192009&rfr_iscdi=true |