2014
DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000000060
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
23
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
3

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Quantitative methods of measuring liver echogenicity are always unreliable [27,28] but quantitative calculation of hepatosteatosis is more accurate than the qualitative assessment of hepatosteatosis on US. The ratios of the quantitative assessment were 77%, 77% and 71% as the sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy, respectively, in comparison with 60%-100%, 77%-95% and 96% for qualitative assessment [15,17,28] . Despite the benefits of US, such as being noninvasive, widely available, low cost, ease of clinician use and interpretation, it has some limitations, such as a small field of view, limited use in accompanying chronic liver disease, inability to distinguish degree of fibrosis, cirrhosis and NASH, operator and equipment dependence, limited use in obese patients and low sensitivity when hepatosteatosis is less than 20%-30% [15,29] .…”
Section: Usmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Quantitative methods of measuring liver echogenicity are always unreliable [27,28] but quantitative calculation of hepatosteatosis is more accurate than the qualitative assessment of hepatosteatosis on US. The ratios of the quantitative assessment were 77%, 77% and 71% as the sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy, respectively, in comparison with 60%-100%, 77%-95% and 96% for qualitative assessment [15,17,28] . Despite the benefits of US, such as being noninvasive, widely available, low cost, ease of clinician use and interpretation, it has some limitations, such as a small field of view, limited use in accompanying chronic liver disease, inability to distinguish degree of fibrosis, cirrhosis and NASH, operator and equipment dependence, limited use in obese patients and low sensitivity when hepatosteatosis is less than 20%-30% [15,29] .…”
Section: Usmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The ratios of the quantitative assessment were 77%, 77% and 71% as the sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy, respectively, in comparison with 60%-100%, 77%-95% and 96% for qualitative assessment [15,17,28] . Despite the benefits of US, such as being noninvasive, widely available, low cost, ease of clinician use and interpretation, it has some limitations, such as a small field of view, limited use in accompanying chronic liver disease, inability to distinguish degree of fibrosis, cirrhosis and NASH, operator and equipment dependence, limited use in obese patients and low sensitivity when hepatosteatosis is less than 20%-30% [15,29] . In a recent study, Iijima et al [30] used an US contrast matter (Levovist; Sherling, Berlin) to distinguish between simple hepatosteatosis and NASH.…”
Section: Usmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations