The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Meta‐analysis: surveillance with ultrasound for early‐stage hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis
Open accessAbstract
Summary: Background A majority of studies investigating the accuracy of ultrasound for detecting hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) do not reflect how this test is used for surveillance vs. diagnosis. Aim To determine the performance characteristics of surveillance with ultrasound for the detection of HCC, particularly early HCC as defined by the Milan criteria. Methods A systematic literature review using the MEDLINE and SCOPUS databases yielded six studies that evaluated the accuracy of ultrasound for HCC at any stage and 13 studies that were specific to early HCC. Results Surveillance ultrasound detected the majority of tumours before they presented clinically, with a pooled sensitivity of 94%. However, ultrasound was less effective for detecting early HCC with a sensitivity of 63%. Alpha‐fetoprotein provided no additional benefit to ultrasound. Meta‐regression analysis demonstrated a significantly higher sensitivity for early HCC with ultrasound every 6 months than with annual surveillance. Current studies have limitations such as verification bias and are of suboptimal quality. Conclusions Surveillance with ultrasound demonstrates limited sensitivity for early HCC, although this may be improved by testing at 6‐month intervals. Currently available evidence evaluating surveillance ultrasound has significant limitations and future studies are necessary to determine optimal surveillance methods for early HCC.
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
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.
Hanley, J. A., & McNeil, B. J. (1982) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiology.143.1.7063747 · Cited by 21,856
Computed Tomography — An Increasing Source of Radiation Exposure
Brenner, D. J., & Hall, E. J. (2007) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra072149 · Cited by 8,748
Mazzaferro, V., Regalia, E., Doci, R., Andreola, S., Pulvirenti, A., Bozzetti, F., Montalto, F., Ammatuna, M., Morabito, A., & Gennari, L. (1996) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199603143341104 · Cited by 7,186
Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma *
Bruix, J., & Sherman, M. (2005) · Hepatology · doi:10.1002/hep.20933 · Cited by 5,857
Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Epidemiology and Molecular Carcinogenesis
El–Serag, H. B., & Rudolph, K. L. (2007) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2007.04.061 · Cited by 5,415
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
Hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis: Incidence and risk factors
Fattovich, G., Stroffolini, T., Zagni, I., & Donato, F. (2004) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2004.09.014 · Cited by 2,591
Improved tests for a random effects meta‐regression with a single covariate
Knapp, G., & Hartung, J. (2003) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1482 · Cited by 2,075
Cited by
EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma
Galle, P. R., Forner, A., Llovet, J. M., Mazzaferro, V., Piscaglia, F., Raoul, J.-L., Schirmacher, P., & Vilgrain, V. (2018) · Journal of Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2018.03.019 · Cited by 11,406
EASL–EORTC Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma
European Association for the Study of the Liver, & European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (2012) · Journal of Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2011.12.001 · Cited by 5,218
“The combination with AFP is not recommended, as the 6–8% gain in the detection rate does not counterbalance the increase in false positive results, ultimately leading to an about 80% increase in the cost of each small HCC diagnosed [69,85].”
BackgroundEl-Serag, H. B. (2011) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra1001683 · Cited by 3,529
Tzartzeva, K., Obi, J., Rich, N. E., Parikh, N. D., Marrero, J. A., Yopp, A., Waljee, A. K., & Singal, A. G. (2018) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2018.01.064 · Cited by 1,207
Self-citationEpidemiology of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Consider the Population
Mittal, S., & El-Serag, H. B. (2013) · Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology · doi:10.1097/mcg.0b013e3182872f29 · Cited by 1,076
Metadata
- Authors
- SINGAL, A., VOLK, M. L., WALJEE, A., SALGIA, R., HIGGINS, P., ROGERS, M. A. M., & MARRERO, J. A.
- Venue
- Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-06-15
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 37-47
- ISSN
- 0269-2813 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2036
- OpenAlex
- W2171104739
- Cited by
- 819
- References
- 43
- FWCI
- 13.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Meta‐analysis: surveillance with ultrasound for early‐stage hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2009.04014.x
- The paper
- SINGAL, A., VOLK, M. L., WALJEE, A., SALGIA, R., HIGGINS, P., ROGERS, M. A. M., & MARRERO, J. A. (2009). Meta‐analysis: surveillance with ultrasound for early‐stage hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2009.04014.x
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.
