AIM: To compare ultrasound gradings of steatosis with fat fraction (FF) on magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS; the non-invasive reference standard for quantification of hepatic steatosis), and evaluate inter- and intraobserver variability in the ultrasound gradings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Triple grading of hepatic ultrasound examination was performed by three independent graders on 131 people with type 2 diabetes. The stored images of 60 of these individuals were assessed twice by each grader on separate occasions. Fifty-eight patients were pre-selected on the basis of ultrasound grading (normal, indeterminate/mild steatosis, or severe steatosis) to undergo (1)H-MRS. The sensitivity and specificity of the ultrasound gradings were determined with reference to MRS data, using two cut-offs of FF to define steatosis, ≥9% and ≥6.1%. RESULTS: Median (intraquartile range) MRS FF (%) in the participants graded on ultrasound as normal, indeterminate/mild steatosis, and severe steatosis were 4.2 (1.2-5.7), 4.1 (3.1-8.5) and 19.4 (12.9-27.5), respectively. Using a liver FF of ≥6.1% on MRS to denote hepatic steatosis, the unadjusted sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound gradings (severe versus other grades of steatosis) were 71 and 100%, respectively. Interobserver agreement within one grade was observed in 79% of cases. Exact intraobserver agreement ranged from 62 to 87%. CONCLUSION: Hepatic ultrasound provided a good measure of the presence of significant hepatic steatosis with good intra- and interobserver agreement. The grading of a mildly steatotic liver was less secure and, in particular, there was considerable overlap in hepatic FF with those who had a normal liver on ultrasound.
AIM: To compare ultrasound gradings of steatosis with fat fraction (FF) on magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS; the non-invasive reference standard for quantification of hepatic steatosis), and evaluate inter- and intraobserver variability in the ultrasound gradings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Triple grading of hepatic ultrasound examination was performed by three independent graders on 131 people with type 2 diabetes. The stored images of 60 of these individuals were assessed twice by each grader on separate occasions. Fifty-eight patients were pre-selected on the basis of ultrasound grading (normal, indeterminate/mild steatosis, or severe steatosis) to undergo (1)H-MRS. The sensitivity and specificity of the ultrasound gradings were determined with reference to MRS data, using two cut-offs of FF to define steatosis, ≥9% and ≥6.1%. RESULTS: Median (intraquartile range) MRS FF (%) in the participants graded on ultrasound as normal, indeterminate/mild steatosis, and severe steatosis were 4.2 (1.2-5.7), 4.1 (3.1-8.5) and 19.4 (12.9-27.5), respectively. Using a liver FF of ≥6.1% on MRS to denote hepatic steatosis, the unadjusted sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound gradings (severe versus other grades of steatosis) were 71 and 100%, respectively. Interobserver agreement within one grade was observed in 79% of cases. Exact intraobserver agreement ranged from 62 to 87%. CONCLUSION: Hepatic ultrasound provided a good measure of the presence of significant hepatic steatosis with good intra- and interobserver agreement. The grading of a mildly steatotic liver was less secure and, in particular, there was considerable overlap in hepatic FF with those who had a normal liver on ultrasound.
Authors: Jeremy S Paige; Gregory S Bernstein; Elhamy Heba; Eduardo A C Costa; Marilia Fereirra; Tanya Wolfson; Anthony C Gamst; Mark A Valasek; Grace Y Lin; Aiguo Han; John W Erdman; William D O'Brien; Michael P Andre; Rohit Loomba; Claude B Sirlin Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2017-03-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: S Forbes; I F Godsland; S D Taylor-Robinson; J D Bell; E L Thomas; N Patel; G Hamilton; K H Parker; I Marshall; C D Gray; D Bedford; M Caslake; B R Walker; D G Johnston Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2013-06-13 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Laura E Dichtel; Alireza Eajazi; Karen K Miller; Martin Torriani; Miriam A Bredella Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2016 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Rachel M Williamson; Jackie F Price; Stephen Glancy; Elisa Perry; Lisa D Nee; Peter C Hayes; Brian M Frier; Liesbeth A F Van Look; Geoffrey I Johnston; Rebecca M Reynolds; Mark W J Strachan Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-04-08 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Rebecca M Reynolds; Javier Labad; Alison V Sears; Rachel M Williamson; Mark W J Strachan; Ian J Deary; Gordon D O Lowe; Jackie F Price; Brian R Walker Journal: Eur J Endocrinol Date: 2012-03-09 Impact factor: 6.664
Authors: Joanne R Morling; Jonathan A Fallowfield; Rachel M Williamson; Christine M Robertson; Stephen Glancy; Indra N Guha; Mark W J Strachan; Jackie F Price Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2015-03-29 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: D P Macfarlane; P J Raubenheimer; T Preston; C D Gray; M E Bastin; I Marshall; J P Iredale; R Andrew; B R Walker Journal: Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol Date: 2014-08-07 Impact factor: 4.052