The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The diagnostic accuracy of US, CT, MRI and 1H-MRS for the evaluation of hepatic steatosis compared with liver biopsy: a meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To meta-analyse the diagnostic accuracy of US, CT, MRI and 1H-MRS for the evaluation of hepatic steatosis. METHODS: From a comprehensive literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane (up to November 2009), articles were selected that investigated the diagnostic performance imaging techniques for evaluating hepatic steatosis with histopathology as the reference standard. Cut-off values for the presence of steatosis on liver biopsy were subdivided into four groups: (1) >0, >2 and >5% steatosis; (2) >10, >15 and >20%; (3) >25, >30 and >33%; (4) >50, >60 and >66%. Per group, summary estimates for sensitivity and specificity were calculated. The natural-logarithm of the diagnostic odds ratio (lnDOR) was used as a single indicator of test performance. RESULTS: 46 articles were included. Mean sensitivity estimates for subgroups were 73.3-90.5% (US), 46.1-72.0% (CT), 82.0-97.4% (MRI) and 72.7-88.5% (1H-MRS). Mean specificity ranges were 69.6-85.2% (US), 88.1-94.6% (CT), 76.1-95.3% (MRI) and 92.0-95.7% (1H-MRS). Overall performance (lnDOR) of MRI and 1H-MRS was better than that for US and CT for all subgroups, with significant differences in groups 1 and 2. CONCLUSION: MRI and 1H-MRS can be considered techniques of choice for accurate evaluation of hepatic steatosis.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease
Angulo, P. (2002) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra011775 · Cited by 5,228
Whiting, P., Rutjes, A. W., Reitsma, J. B., Bossuyt, P. M., & Kleijnen, J. (2003) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-3-25 · Cited by 3,592
Reitsma, J. B., Glas, A. S., Rutjes, A. W. S., Scholten, R. J. P. M., Bossuyt, P. M., & Zwinderman, A. H. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.022 · Cited by 3,369 · cited 2×
“For the sROC approach, a negative correlation between the logit sensitivity and the logit specificity is required [17].”
The Natural History of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: A Population-Based Cohort Study
Adams, L. A., Lymp, J. F., St. Sauver, J., Sanderson, S. O., Lindor, K. D., Feldstein, A., & Angulo, P. (2005) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2005.04.014 · Cited by 2,890
The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance
Glas, A. S., Lijmer, J. G., Prins, M. H., Bonsel, G. J., & Bossuyt, P. M. M. (2003) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(03)00177-x · Cited by 2,261
Cited by
Sberna, A. L., Bouillet, B., Rouland, A., Brindisi, M. C., Nguyen, A., Mouillot, T., Duvillard, L., Denimal, D., Loffroy, R., Vergès, B., et al. (2018) · Diabetic Medicine · doi:10.1111/dme.13565 · Cited by 322
Quantification of liver fat content with CT and MRI: state of the art
Starekova, J., Hernando, D., Pickhardt, P. J., & Reeder, S. B. (2021) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2021204288 · Cited by 320
Webb, M., Yeshua, H., Zelber-Sagi, S., Santo, E., Brazowski, E., Halpern, Z., & Oren, R. (2009) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.07.4016 · Cited by 285
Spengler, E. K., & Loomba, R. (2015) · Mayo Clinic Proceedings · doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2015.06.013 · Cited by 284
Armstrong, M. J., Houlihan, D. D., Rowe, I. A., Clausen, W. H. O., Elbrønd, B., Gough, S. C. L., Tomlinson, J. W., & Newsome, P. N. (2013) · Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1111/apt.12149 · Cited by 250
Metadata
- Authors
- Bohte, A. E., van Werven, J. R., Bipat, S., & Stoker, J.
- Venue
- European Radiology
- Published
- 2010-07-31
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 87-97
- ISSN
- 0938-7994 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-1084
- OpenAlex
- W2128682609
- Cited by
- 543
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 2.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The diagnostic accuracy of US, CT, MRI and 1H-MRS for the evaluation of hepatic steatosis compared with liver biopsy: a meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s00330-010-1905-5
- The paper
- Bohte, A. E., van Werven, J. R., Bipat, S., & Stoker, J. (2011). The diagnostic accuracy of US, CT, MRI and 1H-MRS for the evaluation of hepatic steatosis compared with liver biopsy: a meta-analysis. European Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1905-5
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
