Table 1.
Comparison of imaging tools for the diagnosis of NAFLD. TAG, triglycerides; VCTE, vibration control transient elastography; ARFI, acoustic radiation force impulse; SWE, shear wave elastography; MRE, magnetic resonance elastography; CT, computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging
Methods | Cost | Accuracy | Quantification | Sensitivity | Application | Limitation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ultrasonography | + | + | No | Decrease with obesity | Screening tool, inexpensive | Operator dependent, low sensitivity, |
Elastography | ||||||
VCTE | + | ++ | Yes | High | Specific for liver, fast acquisition, advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis, immediate results; XL probe for overweight patients | Disable to tell fibrosis stage, not reliable in severely obese patients |
ARFI | ++ | ++ | Yes | High | Specific for liver, fast acquisition, advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis, immediate results | Operator dependent; limited data, narrow range |
SWE | ++ | ++ | Yes | High | Operator dependent | |
MRE | +++ | +++ | Yes | High | Not affected by obesity | High cost, time consuming, not suitable for patients with implantable devices |
CT | ++ | ++ | Semi | Low | / | Radiation exposure |
MRI | +++ | ++ | Yes | High | Gold standard for TAG evaluation | Operator dependent, long imaging time, limited availability |