Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography and gadoxetic acid disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in detecting hepatocellular carcinoma: direct comparison and a meta-analysis
The purpose of this study was to directly (head-to-head) compare the per-lesion diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) (also referred to as CT hereafter) and gadoxetic acid disodium (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (also referred to as MRI hereafte...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Abdominal imaging 2016-10, Vol.41 (10), p.1960-1972 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1972 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 10 |
| container_start_page | 1960 |
| container_title | Abdominal imaging |
| container_volume | 41 |
| creator | Guo, Jin Seo, Youngkwon Ren, Shuo Hong, Sunwoo Lee, Dongki Kim, Soyoun Jiang, Yuanyuan |
| description | The purpose of this study was to directly (head-to-head) compare the per-lesion diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) (also referred to as CT hereafter) and gadoxetic acid disodium (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (also referred to as MRI hereafter) for the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Studies reporting direct per-lesion comparison data of contrast-enhanced multidetector CT and Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging that were published between January 2000 and January 2015 were analyzed. The data of each study were extracted. Systematic review, paired meta-analysis, and subgroup analysis were performed. Twelve studies including 627 patients and 793 HCC lesions were analyzed. The sensitivity estimates of MRI and CT were, respectively, 0.86 (95% CI 0.76–0.93) and 0.70 (95% CI 0.58–0.80), with significant difference (
P
0.05). In all subgroups, Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging was more sensitive than multidetector CT for the detection of HCC, and specificity estimates of both tests maintained at a similarly high level in all conditions: sensitivity estimates of both tests were reduced in studies where patients were diagnosed with HCC solely by liver explant or in those where HCC lesions were small (≤2 cm, especially when ≤1 cm). But in all situations, sensitivities of MRI were higher than those of CT with or without significance. Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging showed better per-lesion diagnostic performance than multidetector CT for the diagnosis of HCC in patients with cirrhosis and in small hepatic lesions. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00261-016-0807-7 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5018023</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>4253155851</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c536t-95dda9b9ecc1bf3c435e37a91119872987d940e6496fa7ea4852a778b0411bcf3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1ks-K1TAUxosozjDOA7iRgBs3HZP-S-pCkNFRYcCNgrtwmpz2ZmiTmqSD91V9GtPb8XIVXJQ053z5fTnhy7LnjF4xSvnrQGnRsJyyJqeC8pw_ys6Lskk7WovHx__q-1l2GcIdpUlZM1bUT7OzgpdMtGVznv16b2CwLkSjyIy-d34Cq5C4nihno4cQc7S7tabJtIzRaIyoovOpP81LTOXoJjd4mHd7AlaTAbT7iSsQlNFEm-C0WaYTTHI89D0GZw92JtWMHYixZOOvmx3OEJ3CcVxGSH7glbFugjeJ6ZPmcAPwiW8PxkAmjJCDhXEfTHiWPelhDHj5sF5k324-fL3-lN9--fj5-t1truqyiXlbaw1t16JSrOtLVZU1lhxaxlgreJE-3VYUm6pteuAIlagL4Fx0tGKsU315kb3duPPSTagVrs82ytmnofxeOjDy7441Ozm4e1lTJmhRJsCrB4B3PxYMUU4mrGODRbcEyQQTZTKraJK-_Ed65xafBl5VFRWi5mJVsU2lvAvBY3-8DKNyDY_cwiNTJOQaHsnTmRenUxxP_IlKEhSbIKSWHdCfWP-X-huRvNcQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1840885780</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography and gadoxetic acid disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in detecting hepatocellular carcinoma: direct comparison and a meta-analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Guo, Jin ; Seo, Youngkwon ; Ren, Shuo ; Hong, Sunwoo ; Lee, Dongki ; Kim, Soyoun ; Jiang, Yuanyuan</creator><creatorcontrib>Guo, Jin ; Seo, Youngkwon ; Ren, Shuo ; Hong, Sunwoo ; Lee, Dongki ; Kim, Soyoun ; Jiang, Yuanyuan</creatorcontrib><description>The purpose of this study was to directly (head-to-head) compare the per-lesion diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) (also referred to as CT hereafter) and gadoxetic acid disodium (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (also referred to as MRI hereafter) for the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Studies reporting direct per-lesion comparison data of contrast-enhanced multidetector CT and Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging that were published between January 2000 and January 2015 were analyzed. The data of each study were extracted. Systematic review, paired meta-analysis, and subgroup analysis were performed. Twelve studies including 627 patients and 793 HCC lesions were analyzed. The sensitivity estimates of MRI and CT were, respectively, 0.86 (95% CI 0.76–0.93) and 0.70 (95% CI 0.58–0.80), with significant difference (
P
< 0.05). The sensitivity estimates were both 0.94 (95% CI 0.92–0.96) (Chi-square 4.84, degrees of freedom = 1,
P
> 0.05). In all subgroups, Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging was more sensitive than multidetector CT for the detection of HCC, and specificity estimates of both tests maintained at a similarly high level in all conditions: sensitivity estimates of both tests were reduced in studies where patients were diagnosed with HCC solely by liver explant or in those where HCC lesions were small (≤2 cm, especially when ≤1 cm). But in all situations, sensitivities of MRI were higher than those of CT with or without significance. Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging showed better per-lesion diagnostic performance than multidetector CT for the diagnosis of HCC in patients with cirrhosis and in small hepatic lesions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2366-004X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2366-0058</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00261-016-0807-7</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27318936</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Carcinoma, Hepatocellular - diagnostic imaging ; Contrast Media ; Gadolinium DTPA ; Gastroenterology ; Hepatology ; Humans ; Imaging ; Liver Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Multidetector Computed Tomography ; Radiology</subject><ispartof>Abdominal imaging, 2016-10, Vol.41 (10), p.1960-1972</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2016</rights><rights>Abdominal Radiology is a copyright of Springer, 2016.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c536t-95dda9b9ecc1bf3c435e37a91119872987d940e6496fa7ea4852a778b0411bcf3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c536t-95dda9b9ecc1bf3c435e37a91119872987d940e6496fa7ea4852a778b0411bcf3</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/s00261-016-0807-7$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00261-016-0807-7$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,27903,27904,41467,42536,51298</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27318936$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Guo, Jin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seo, Youngkwon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ren, Shuo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hong, Sunwoo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Dongki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Soyoun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jiang, Yuanyuan</creatorcontrib><title>Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography and gadoxetic acid disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in detecting hepatocellular carcinoma: direct comparison and a meta-analysis</title><title>Abdominal imaging</title><addtitle>Abdom Radiol</addtitle><addtitle>Abdom Radiol (NY)</addtitle><description>The purpose of this study was to directly (head-to-head) compare the per-lesion diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) (also referred to as CT hereafter) and gadoxetic acid disodium (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (also referred to as MRI hereafter) for the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Studies reporting direct per-lesion comparison data of contrast-enhanced multidetector CT and Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging that were published between January 2000 and January 2015 were analyzed. The data of each study were extracted. Systematic review, paired meta-analysis, and subgroup analysis were performed. Twelve studies including 627 patients and 793 HCC lesions were analyzed. The sensitivity estimates of MRI and CT were, respectively, 0.86 (95% CI 0.76–0.93) and 0.70 (95% CI 0.58–0.80), with significant difference (
P
< 0.05). The sensitivity estimates were both 0.94 (95% CI 0.92–0.96) (Chi-square 4.84, degrees of freedom = 1,
P
> 0.05). In all subgroups, Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging was more sensitive than multidetector CT for the detection of HCC, and specificity estimates of both tests maintained at a similarly high level in all conditions: sensitivity estimates of both tests were reduced in studies where patients were diagnosed with HCC solely by liver explant or in those where HCC lesions were small (≤2 cm, especially when ≤1 cm). But in all situations, sensitivities of MRI were higher than those of CT with or without significance. Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging showed better per-lesion diagnostic performance than multidetector CT for the diagnosis of HCC in patients with cirrhosis and in small hepatic lesions.</description><subject>Carcinoma, Hepatocellular - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Contrast Media</subject><subject>Gadolinium DTPA</subject><subject>Gastroenterology</subject><subject>Hepatology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Liver Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Multidetector Computed Tomography</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><issn>2366-004X</issn><issn>2366-0058</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1ks-K1TAUxosozjDOA7iRgBs3HZP-S-pCkNFRYcCNgrtwmpz2ZmiTmqSD91V9GtPb8XIVXJQ053z5fTnhy7LnjF4xSvnrQGnRsJyyJqeC8pw_ys6Lskk7WovHx__q-1l2GcIdpUlZM1bUT7OzgpdMtGVznv16b2CwLkSjyIy-d34Cq5C4nihno4cQc7S7tabJtIzRaIyoovOpP81LTOXoJjd4mHd7AlaTAbT7iSsQlNFEm-C0WaYTTHI89D0GZw92JtWMHYixZOOvmx3OEJ3CcVxGSH7glbFugjeJ6ZPmcAPwiW8PxkAmjJCDhXEfTHiWPelhDHj5sF5k324-fL3-lN9--fj5-t1truqyiXlbaw1t16JSrOtLVZU1lhxaxlgreJE-3VYUm6pteuAIlagL4Fx0tGKsU315kb3duPPSTagVrs82ytmnofxeOjDy7441Ozm4e1lTJmhRJsCrB4B3PxYMUU4mrGODRbcEyQQTZTKraJK-_Ed65xafBl5VFRWi5mJVsU2lvAvBY3-8DKNyDY_cwiNTJOQaHsnTmRenUxxP_IlKEhSbIKSWHdCfWP-X-huRvNcQ</recordid><startdate>20161001</startdate><enddate>20161001</enddate><creator>Guo, Jin</creator><creator>Seo, Youngkwon</creator><creator>Ren, Shuo</creator><creator>Hong, Sunwoo</creator><creator>Lee, Dongki</creator><creator>Kim, Soyoun</creator><creator>Jiang, Yuanyuan</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</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>JQ2</scope><scope>K7-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7Z</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20161001</creationdate><title>Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography and gadoxetic acid disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in detecting hepatocellular carcinoma: direct comparison and a meta-analysis</title><author>Guo, Jin ; Seo, Youngkwon ; Ren, Shuo ; Hong, Sunwoo ; Lee, Dongki ; Kim, Soyoun ; Jiang, Yuanyuan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c536t-95dda9b9ecc1bf3c435e37a91119872987d940e6496fa7ea4852a778b0411bcf3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Carcinoma, Hepatocellular - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Contrast Media</topic><topic>Gadolinium DTPA</topic><topic>Gastroenterology</topic><topic>Hepatology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Liver Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Multidetector Computed Tomography</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Guo, Jin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seo, Youngkwon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ren, Shuo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hong, Sunwoo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Dongki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Soyoun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jiang, Yuanyuan</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</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 Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Computer Science Database</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>Biochemistry Abstracts 1</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>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Abdominal imaging</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Guo, Jin</au><au>Seo, Youngkwon</au><au>Ren, Shuo</au><au>Hong, Sunwoo</au><au>Lee, Dongki</au><au>Kim, Soyoun</au><au>Jiang, Yuanyuan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography and gadoxetic acid disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in detecting hepatocellular carcinoma: direct comparison and a meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>Abdominal imaging</jtitle><stitle>Abdom Radiol</stitle><addtitle>Abdom Radiol (NY)</addtitle><date>2016-10-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>41</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>1960</spage><epage>1972</epage><pages>1960-1972</pages><issn>2366-004X</issn><eissn>2366-0058</eissn><abstract>The purpose of this study was to directly (head-to-head) compare the per-lesion diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) (also referred to as CT hereafter) and gadoxetic acid disodium (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (also referred to as MRI hereafter) for the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Studies reporting direct per-lesion comparison data of contrast-enhanced multidetector CT and Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging that were published between January 2000 and January 2015 were analyzed. The data of each study were extracted. Systematic review, paired meta-analysis, and subgroup analysis were performed. Twelve studies including 627 patients and 793 HCC lesions were analyzed. The sensitivity estimates of MRI and CT were, respectively, 0.86 (95% CI 0.76–0.93) and 0.70 (95% CI 0.58–0.80), with significant difference (
P
< 0.05). The sensitivity estimates were both 0.94 (95% CI 0.92–0.96) (Chi-square 4.84, degrees of freedom = 1,
P
> 0.05). In all subgroups, Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging was more sensitive than multidetector CT for the detection of HCC, and specificity estimates of both tests maintained at a similarly high level in all conditions: sensitivity estimates of both tests were reduced in studies where patients were diagnosed with HCC solely by liver explant or in those where HCC lesions were small (≤2 cm, especially when ≤1 cm). But in all situations, sensitivities of MRI were higher than those of CT with or without significance. Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging showed better per-lesion diagnostic performance than multidetector CT for the diagnosis of HCC in patients with cirrhosis and in small hepatic lesions.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>27318936</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00261-016-0807-7</doi><tpages>13</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 2366-004X |
| ispartof | Abdominal imaging, 2016-10, Vol.41 (10), p.1960-1972 |
| issn | 2366-004X 2366-0058 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5018023 |
| source | MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
| subjects | Carcinoma, Hepatocellular - diagnostic imaging Contrast Media Gadolinium DTPA Gastroenterology Hepatology Humans Imaging Liver Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Magnetic Resonance Imaging Medicine Medicine & Public Health Multidetector Computed Tomography Radiology |
| title | Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography and gadoxetic acid disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in detecting hepatocellular carcinoma: direct comparison and a meta-analysis |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-23T10%3A35%3A24IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Diagnostic%20performance%20of%20contrast-enhanced%20multidetector%20computed%20tomography%20and%20gadoxetic%20acid%20disodium-enhanced%20magnetic%20resonance%20imaging%20in%20detecting%20hepatocellular%20carcinoma:%20direct%20comparison%20and%20a%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=Abdominal%20imaging&rft.au=Guo,%20Jin&rft.date=2016-10-01&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=1960&rft.epage=1972&rft.pages=1960-1972&rft.issn=2366-004X&rft.eissn=2366-0058&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00261-016-0807-7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E4253155851%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1840885780&rft_id=info:pmid/27318936&rfr_iscdi=true |