Evidence Hub

Quantitative Ultrasound for Hepatic Steatosis: A Systematic Review Highlighting the Diagnostic Performance of Ultrasound-Derived Fat Fraction

Dimitrios Kavvadas, V. Rafailidis, A. Liakos, E. Sinakos, S. Partovi, T. Papamitsou, P. Prassopoulos

Diagnostics, 2025

862 participants · 12 citations

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Metabolic-dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is a leading cause of chronic liver disease worldwide, requiring accurate and accessible diagnostic tools. Methods: A systematic review evaluated the diagnostic performance of Ultrasound-Derived Fat Fraction (UDFF), with a primary focus on prospective studies comparing UDFF to MRI Proton Density Fat Fraction (MRI-PDFF) as the reference standard and a secondary appraisal of its performance against other modalities. Additional parameters, such as technical feasibility, inter-observer agreement, and proposed thresholds, were summarized to support clinical applicability. Results: Seven prospective MRI-based studies (n = 862) demonstrated excellent correlation (average r = 0.848) and reproducibility (inter-observer intraclass correlation coefficient ICC = 0.978, intra-observer ICC = 0.980) of UDFF, with high diagnostic accuracy across steatosis grades (AUCs ≥ 0.89). Additional studies comparing UDFF with Controlled Attenuation Parameter (CAP), histology, and other quantitative ultrasound techniques (attenuation- or backscatter-based methods) confirmed high sensitivity and specificity, particularly for advanced steatosis, and emphasized the potential of UDFF as a comprehensive quantitative biomarker. Proposed UDFF cut-offs for mild, moderate, and severe steatosis ranged from 5% to 23%, demonstrating high sensitivity and specificity. Factors like body position, probe pressure, and visceral fat…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 862 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free