Ji Hun Kang1, Sang Hyun Choi1, Ji Sung Lee2,3, Seong Ho Park1, Kyung Won Kim1, So Yeon Kim1, Seung Soo Lee1, Jae Ho Byun1. 1. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 3. Clinical Research Center, Asan Institute for Life Sciences, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Use of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) is increasing, but the reported results for interreader agreement seem quite variable. PURPOSE: To systematically determine the interreader agreement of LI-RADS on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and to determine the sources of heterogeneity between the reported results. STUDY TYPE: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SUBJECTS: Fifteen original articles with 2968 lesions. FIELD STRENGTH: 1.5T and 3.0T. ASSESSMENT: Two reviewers independently performed the data extraction. The reviewers identified and reviewed the original articles reporting the interreader agreement of LI-RADS using MRI. STATISTICAL TESTS: The meta-analytic pooled intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for lesion size and kappa value (κ) for major features (arterial-phase hyperenhancement [APHE], nonperipheral washout [WO], enhancing capsule [EC]) and LI-RADS categorization (LR) were calculated using the random-effects model. Sensitivity analysis and meta-regression analysis were performed to explore the cause of study heterogeneity. RESULTS: The meta-analytic pooled ICC of lesion size was 0.97 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.00). Meta-analytic pooled κ of APHE, WO, EC, and LR were 0.72 (95% CI, 0.62-0.82), 0.69 (95% CI, 0.60-0.78), 0.66 (95% CI, 0.58-0.74), and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.56-0.85), respectively. Substantial study heterogeneity was noted in all five variables (I2 ≥ 89.1%, P < 0.001). Study design, type, and clarity of blinding review were factors that significantly influenced study heterogeneity (P ≤ 0.05). DATA CONCLUSION: LI-RADS demonstrated overall substantial interreader agreement for major features and the category on MRI, but showed heterogeneous results between studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;52:795-804.
BACKGROUND: Use of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) is increasing, but the reported results for interreader agreement seem quite variable. PURPOSE: To systematically determine the interreader agreement of LI-RADS on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and to determine the sources of heterogeneity between the reported results. STUDY TYPE: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SUBJECTS: Fifteen original articles with 2968 lesions. FIELD STRENGTH: 1.5T and 3.0T. ASSESSMENT: Two reviewers independently performed the data extraction. The reviewers identified and reviewed the original articles reporting the interreader agreement of LI-RADS using MRI. STATISTICAL TESTS: The meta-analytic pooled intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for lesion size and kappa value (κ) for major features (arterial-phase hyperenhancement [APHE], nonperipheral washout [WO], enhancing capsule [EC]) and LI-RADS categorization (LR) were calculated using the random-effects model. Sensitivity analysis and meta-regression analysis were performed to explore the cause of study heterogeneity. RESULTS: The meta-analytic pooled ICC of lesion size was 0.97 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.00). Meta-analytic pooled κ of APHE, WO, EC, and LR were 0.72 (95% CI, 0.62-0.82), 0.69 (95% CI, 0.60-0.78), 0.66 (95% CI, 0.58-0.74), and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.56-0.85), respectively. Substantial study heterogeneity was noted in all five variables (I2 ≥ 89.1%, P < 0.001). Study design, type, and clarity of blinding review were factors that significantly influenced study heterogeneity (P ≤ 0.05). DATA CONCLUSION: LI-RADS demonstrated overall substantial interreader agreement for major features and the category on MRI, but showed heterogeneous results between studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;52:795-804.
Authors: Jun Li; Ming Chen; Zi-Jing Wang; Shu-Gang Li; Meng Jiang; Long Shi; Chun-Li Cao; Tian Sang; Xin-Wu Cui; Christoph F Dietrich Journal: World J Clin Cases Date: 2020-11-26 Impact factor: 1.337
Authors: Yura Ahn; Sang Hyun Choi; Jong Keon Jang; So Yeon Kim; Ju Hyun Shim; Seung Soo Lee; Jae Ho Byun Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 3.500