. 2018 Jun 6;91(1089):20170959. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20170959

Table 3.

Studies on diagnostic accuracy of MR with liver biopsy as reference standard

Author, year (reference)	Design	N	Indication	PDFF threshold (%)	Sensitivity	Specificity
Bohte et al⁴⁷	Meta-analysis: 11 studies from 2001 to 2009	569	Potential liver donor/NAFLD/liver resection	N/A	Grade > 0%: 0.82 Grade > 10%: 0.90 Grade > 25%: 0.97	Grade > 0%: 0.90 Grade > 10%: 0.95 Grade > 25%: 0.76
Idilman et al	Retrospective	70	Biopsy-proven NAFLD	Grade ≥ 2: 15%	Grade ≥ 2: 0.93	Grade ≥ 2: 0.85
Tang et al⁷⁶	Prospective	89	NAFLD	Grade ≥ 1: 6.4 Grade ≥ 2: 17.4 Grade = 3: 22.1	Grade ≥ 1: 0.86 Grade ≥ 2: 0.64 Grade = 3: 0.71	Grade ≥ 1: 0.83 Grade ≥ 2: 0.96 Grade = 3: 0.92
Paige et al³⁹	Prospective	61	Biopsy-proven NAFLD	Grade ≥ 2: 13.45 Grade = 3: 16.83	Grade >= 2: 0.85 Grade = 3: 1.00	Grade >= 2: 0.96 Grade = 3: 0.81
Middleton et al., 2017⁷⁷	Multicenter RCT	110	Paediatric NAFLD clinical trial	Grade ≥ 2: 17.5 Grade = 3: 23.3	Grade ≥ 2: 0.74 Grade = 3: 0.60	0.90^a
Middleton et al., 2017⁷⁷	Multicenter RCT	113	NASH clinical trial	Grade ≥ 2: 16.3 Grade = 3: 21.7	Grade ≥ 2: 0.83 Grade = 3: 0.84	0.90^a

N, sample size; NAFLD, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; NASH, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis; PDFF, proton-density fat fraction; RCT, randomised controlled trial.

^aPDFF threshold was chosen for a target specificity of 0.90.