Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Sep 21.
Published in final edited form as: Gastroenterology. 2019 Jan 18;156(5):1264–1281.e4. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.12.036

Table 2.

Respective Characteristics, Advantages, and Limitations of the 4 Available Elastography Techniques for Liver Fibrosis Staging

Techniques Performed by Units (range) Steatosis grading Quality criteria Failure rate, % Confounders Evidence in NAFLD study patients Cost Point of care

Inflammation Obesity Others
TE Hepatologist, trained kPa (2–75) Yes Well-defined 3–27 ++ ++ Congestion steatosis? n = 25 $ Yes
nurse or technician CAP IQR/M <30% XL-probe 3862
MRE Radiologist kPaa (2–11) Yes Emerging QIBA 0–2 + - Congestion iron overload n = 6 $$$ No
PDFF consensus + 676
statement +
pSWE/ARFI Radiologist or m/s (0.5–4.4) No Not well-defined 2 + ? + ? Similar to TE? n = 8 $$ No
ultrasonographer limited data limited data limited data 834
2D-SWE Radiologist or kPa (2–150) No Not well-defined 13 ? + ? + ? Similar to TE? n = 2 $$ No
ultrasonographer limited data limited data limited data 447

IQR/M, interquartile range/median; QIBA, Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance.

a

MRE is reported as shear modulus, while ultrasound elastography techniques are reported in Young modulus. The Young modulus is 3 times the shear modulus.