MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail

Do you wish to reserve the book?
Diagnostic accuracy of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System locoregional treatment response criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Diagnostic accuracy of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System locoregional treatment response criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Diagnostic accuracy of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System locoregional treatment response criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Title added to your shelf!
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Diagnostic accuracy of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System locoregional treatment response criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Diagnostic accuracy of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System locoregional treatment response criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
How would you like to get it?
We have requested the book for you! Sorry the robot delivery is not available at the moment
We have requested the book for you!
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Diagnostic accuracy of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System locoregional treatment response criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Diagnostic accuracy of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System locoregional treatment response criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Journal Article

Diagnostic accuracy of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System locoregional treatment response criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021
Request Book From Autostore and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
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.

MBRLCatalogueRelatedBooks