Table 1 Characteristics of the studies included in the systematic review
First author | Year | Study design | Country | Subject | Age (y) | BMI (kg/m2) | Field strength | Interval | Scoring system | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Loomba | 2016 | prospective | US | 100 | 36.6–63.8 | 27.1–37.1 | 3 T | 46d | NASH-CRN | 3D-MRE vs 2D-MRE |
Cui | 2016 | prospective | US | 125 | 33.5–64.3 | 24.7–38.7 | 3 T | 46.5d | NASH-CRN | MRE vs ARFI |
Loomba | 2014 | prospective | US | 117 | 36.7–63.5 | 27.4–37.4 | 3 T | 45d | NASH-CRN | – |
Costa-Silva | 2017 | prospective | Brazil | 49 | 41.3–66.3 | 27.3–37.1 | 1.5 T | 0.3–7.1 m | NASH-CRN | – |
Cui | 2015 | prospective | US | 102 | 37.3–65.3 | 26.2–37.2 | 3 T | 90d | NASH-CRN | MRE vs eight CPRs |
Park | 2017 | prospective | US | 104 | 36.2–65.4 | 25.2–35.6 | 3 T | 42d | NASH-CRN | MRE vs TE |
Chen | 2011 | retrospective | US | 58 | 25–78 | 21.2–50.6 | 1.5 T | 90d | brunt & kleiner | – |
Imajo | 2016 | retrospective | Japan | 142 | 42.9–72.1 | 23.47–32.73 | 3 T | < 6 m | brunt & kleiner | MRE vs TE |
Wang | 2011 | prospective | US | 5 | 20–74 | 1.5 T | ,1y | METAVIR | MRE vs DWI | |
Godfrey | 2012 | prospective | UK | 8 | 37.5–60.5 | 1.5 T | Ishak’s score | MRE vs 31P MR spectroscopy | ||
Chen | 2017 | prospective | France | 92 | 45.4–51.75 | 38.7–41.8 | 1.5 T | METAVIR | MRE vs VCTE | |
Huwart | 2008 | prospective | France | 8 | 41–67 | 31–34.6 | 1.5 T | ,2d | METAVIR | MRE vs ultrasound elastography vs APRI |