Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2021 Sep;31(9):6856-6867.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-07815-y. Epub 2021 Mar 13.

Inter-reader reliability of CT Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System according to imaging analysis methodology: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Ji Hun Kang  1 , Sang Hyun Choi  2 , Ji Sung Lee  3   4 , Kyung Won Kim  5 , So Yeon Kim  5 , Seung Soo Lee  5 , Jae Ho Byun  5
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Inter-reader reliability of CT Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System according to imaging analysis methodology: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Ji Hun Kang et al. Eur Radiol. 2021 Sep.

Erratum in

Abstract

Objectives: To establish inter-reader reliability of CT Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) and explore factors that affect it.

Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched from January 2014 to March 2020 to identify original articles reporting the inter-reader reliability of CT LI-RADS. The imaging analysis methodology of each study was identified, and pooled intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) or kappa values (κ) were calculated for lesion size, major features (arterial-phase hyperenhancement [APHE], nonperipheral washout [WO], and enhancing capsule [EC]), and LI-RADS categorization (LR) using random-effects models. Subgroup analyses of pooled κ were performed for the number of readers, average reader experience, differences in reader experience, and LI-RADS version.

Results: In the 12 included studies, the pooled ICC or κ of lesion size, APHE, WO, EC, and LR were 0.99 (0.96-1.00), 0.69 (0.58-0.81), 0.67 (0.53-0.82), 0.65 (0.54-0.76), and 0.70 (0.59-0.82), respectively. The experience and number of readers varied: studies using readers with ≥ 10 years of experience showed significantly higher κ for LR (0.82 vs. 0.45, p = 0.01) than those with < 10 years of reader experience. Studies with multiple readers including inexperienced readers showed significantly lower κ for APHE (0.55 vs. 0.76, p = 0.04) and LR (0.45 vs. 0.79, p = 0.02) than those with all experienced readers.

Conclusions: CT LI-RADS showed substantial inter-reader reliability for major features and LR. Inter-reader reliability differed significantly according to average reader experience and differences in reader experience. Reported results for inter-reader reliability of CT LI-RADS should be understood with consideration of the imaging analysis methodology.

Key points: • The CT Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) provides substantial inter-reader reliability for three major features and category assignment. • The imaging analysis methodology varied across studies. • The inter-reader reliability of CT LI-RADS differed significantly according to the average reader experience and the difference in reader experience.

Keywords: Hepatocellular carcinoma; Liver; Meta-analysis; Multidetector computed tomography; Reproducibility of results.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Mitchell DG, Bruix J, Sherman M, Sirlin CB (2015) LI-RADS (Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System): summary, discussion, and consensus of the LI-RADS Management Working Group and future directions. Hepatology 61:1056–1065 - DOI
    1. American College of Radiology CT/MRI LI-RADS v2018. Available via https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Reporting-and-Data-Systems/LI-RAD... . Accessed May 27, 2019.
    1. Chernyak V, Fowler KJ, Kamaya A et al (2018) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) Version 2018: imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma in at-risk patients. Radiology 289:816–830 - DOI
    1. Marrero JA, Kulik LM, Sirlin CB et al (2018) Diagnosis, Staging, and Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: 2018 Practice Guidance by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology 68:723–750 - DOI
    1. Clavien PA, Lesurtel M, Bossuyt PM et al (2012) Recommendations for liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: an international consensus conference report. Lancet Oncol 13:e11–e22 - DOI

LinkOut - more resources