We thank Drs Lebossé and Caussy for their thoughtful comments regarding our study. 1,2 The global prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) cirrhosis and NAFLD-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is rising rapidly in parallel with the obesity epidemic. [3][4][5][6] Patients with NASH cirrhosis are recommended to undergo 6-monthly HCC surveillance with ultrasound, with the aim of detecting HCC early. 7 However, NASH cirrhosis and obesity are associated with suboptimal visualisation quality on ultrasound (US). 8 Suboptimal visualisation quality on US performed for HCC surveillance is associated with false negative and false positive findings, potentially leading to harm. 9 Therefore, alternative surveillance strategies are required for patients with suboptimal visualisation quality on US, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocols. 2,10 The current study represents the first prospective, head-to-head comparative study between US and abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging (AMRI) for HCC surveillance in NASH cirrhosis and suggests that AMRI provides better visualisation quality than US.We acknowledge that the number of included participants was modest, however, a-priori sample size calculation determined that the study was sufficiently powered to detect a difference in the proportion of severely limited exams between US and AMRI. 2 In addition, we would like to clarify that decompensated patients were not excluded from this study, however, the majority (96%) of included participants had a MELD score of <15. We completely agree with Drs Lebossé and Caussy that larger, prospective studies of patients with cirrhosis from aetiologies other than NAFLD and cost-effectiveness studies are required.