↓ Skip to main content

Contrast enhanced ultrasound for focal liver lesions: how accurate is it?

Overview of attention for article published in Abdominal Radiology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Contrast enhanced ultrasound for focal liver lesions: how accurate is it?
Published in
Abdominal Radiology, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00261-017-1257-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard G. Barr

Abstract

With the recent FDA approval for characterization of focal liver lesions (FLL) in both pediatric and adult patients using Lumason (sulfur hexafluoride microbubbles), increased use of ultrasound contrast for routine clinical use is expected. This agent has been available for many years in Europe and Asia, and a large body of literature is available regarding the sensitivity and specificity of this agent. In addition, a few studies have directly compared CEUS to CECT and CEMRI for the characterization of focal liver lesions. This paper reviews the literature to provide a background to investigators in the United States as to the accuracy of CEUS in the characterization of FLL. This paper reviews the literature regarding sulfur hexafluoride microbubbles (Lumason in the USA and Sonovue in the rest of the world) since it is the only FDA approved agent in the USA for characterization of FLL. The results of other ultrasound contrast agents which are not FDA approved for abdominal indications (approval for cardiac indications) most likely will have similar results.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Professor 2 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Lecturer 1 5%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 7 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Unspecified 1 5%
Chemistry 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 45%