A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Clinically useful diagnostic tool of contrast enhanced ultrasonography for focal liver masses: comparison to computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. | LitMetric

Background/aims: To evaluate the diagnostic value of contrast (SonoVue(®)) enhancement ultrasonography (CEUS) and to compare this method with computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in evaluating liver masses.

Methods: CEUS (n=50), CT (n=47), and MRI (n=43) were performed on 50 liver masses in 48 patients for baseline mass haracterization. The most likely impression for each modality and the final diagnosis, based on the combined biopsy results (n=14), angiography findings (n=36), and clinical course, were determined. The diagnostic value of CEUS was compared to those of CT and MRI.

Results: The final diagnosis of the masses was hepatocellular carcinoma (n=43), hemangioma (n=3), benign adenoma (n=2), eosinophilic abscess (n=1), and liver metastasis (n=1). The overall diagnostic agreement with the final diagnosis was substantial for CEUS, CT, and MRI, with κ values of 0.621, 0.763, and 0.784, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 83.3%, 87.5%, and 84.0%, respectively, for CEUS; 95.0%, 87.5%, and 93.8%, respectively, for CT; and 94.6%, 83.3%, and 93.0%, respectively for MRI. After excluding the lesions with poor acoustic sonographic windows, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for CEUS were 94.6%, 87.5%, and 93.3%, respectively, with a κ value of 0.765.

Conclusions: If an appropriate acoustic window is available, CEUS is comparable to CT and MRI for the diagnosis of liver masses.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4026647PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.5009/gnl.2014.8.3.292DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

liver masses
12
final diagnosis
12
computed tomography
8
tomography magnetic
8
magnetic resonance
8
resonance imaging
8
sensitivity specificity
8
specificity accuracy
8
ceus
7
liver
5

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!