2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2010.09.021
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The use of ultrasound to diagnose hepatic steatosis in type 2 diabetes: Intra- and interobserver variability and comparison with magnetic resonance spectroscopy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

1
28
0
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
1
28
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Several studies have been published on the interobserver agreement of CUS for grading steatosis [7, 11, 12]. Our finding that CUS observers were in agreement 53.3% of the time is within range of previous studies reporting 40–64% interobserver agreement [11, 12]; however, our interobserver CUS kappa value of 0.61 was higher than the kappa value range of 0.20–0.54 reported previously [7, 11, 12]. …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Several studies have been published on the interobserver agreement of CUS for grading steatosis [7, 11, 12]. Our finding that CUS observers were in agreement 53.3% of the time is within range of previous studies reporting 40–64% interobserver agreement [11, 12]; however, our interobserver CUS kappa value of 0.61 was higher than the kappa value range of 0.20–0.54 reported previously [7, 11, 12]. …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because CUS is assessed using qualitative features, interpretation is subjective, as well as both machine and operator dependent. Because, in part, of these limitations, CUS has limited accuracy [810] and high interobserver variability [7, 11, 12] for assessing hepatic steatosis.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Kim et al found significant associations between the NFS, APRI and FIB4 with cardiovascular mortality in a general population [42]. Our study used all these, as well as the ELF score, an extracellular matrix-related multi-component panel (HA, P3NP and TIMP-1), validated for use in patients with NAFLD [20], and found no relationship.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…All patients underwent a liver ultrasound scan at the 1 year visit. Sonographic grading of hepatic steatosis was performed using standard criteria, as described previously, following validation against proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy [20]. …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Multiple imaging methods like US, CT, MRI, and 1H-MRS have been used to detect and quantify hepatic steatosis non-invasively [11, 14, 24, 3638]. Non-contrast CT is an easy and widely available method for estimation of IHL content [1416], with the advantage for IHL quantification in studies obtained for different purposes, such as virtual colonography [14].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%