RESUMO
Background/Aims@#To compare the performance of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) v2018 and Korean Liver Cancer Association-National Cancer Center (KLCANCC) 2018 criteria for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with hepatobiliary agent (HBA). @*Methods@#We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies from January 1, 2018, to October 20, 2021, that compared the diagnostic performance of two imaging criteria on HBA-MRI. A bivariate random-effects model was fitted to calculate the per-observation sensitivity and specificity, and the estimates of paired data were compared. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the observation size. Meta-regression analysis was also performed for study heterogeneity. @*Results@#Of the six studies included, the pooled sensitivity of the definite HCC category of the KLCA-NCC criteria (82%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 74% to 90%; I 2 =84%) was higher than that of LR-5 of LI-RADS v2018 (65%; 95% CI, 52% to 77%; I 2 =96%) for diagnosing HCC (p<0.001), while the specificity was lower for KLCA-NCC criteria (87%; 95% CI, 84% to 91%; I 2 =0%) than LI-RADS v2018 (93%; 95% CI, 91% to 96%; I 2 =0%) (p=0.017). For observations sized ≥20 mm, the sensitivity was higher for KLCA-NCC 2018 than for LI-RADS v2018 (84% vs 74%, p=0.012), with no significant difference in specificity (81% vs 85%, p=0.451). The reference standard was a significant factor contributing to the heterogeneity of sensitivities. @*Conclusions@#The definite HCC category of KLCA-NCC 2018 provided a higher sensitivity and lower specificity than the LR-5 of LI-RADS v2018 for diagnosing HCC using MRI with HBA.
RESUMO
Purpose@#Access block due to the lack of hospital beds causes crowding of emergency departments (ED). We initiated the “boarding restriction protocol” that limits the time of stay in the ED for patients awaiting hospitalization to 24 hours from arrival. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of the boarding restriction protocol on ED crowding. @*Materials and Methods@#The primary outcome was ED occupancy rate, which was calculated as the ratio of the number of occupying patients to the total number of ED beds. Time factors, such as length of stay (LOS), treatment time, and boarding time, were investigated. @*Results@#The mean of the ED occupancy rate decreased from 1.532±0.432 prior to implementation of the protocol to 1.273±0.353 after (p<0.001). According to time series analysis, the absolute effect caused by the protocol was -0.189 (-0.277 to -0.110) (p=0.001). The proportion of patients with LOS exceeding 24 hours decreased from 7.6% to 4.0% (p<0.001). Among admitted patients, ED LOS decreased from 770.7 (421.4–1587.1) minutes to 630.2 (398.0–1156.8) minutes (p<0.001); treatment time increased from 319.6 (198.5–482.8) minutes to 344.7 (213.4–519.5) minutes (p<0.001); and boarding time decreased from 298.9 (109.5–1149.0) minutes to 204.1 (98.7–545.7) minutes (p<0.001). In pre-protocol period, boarding patients accumulated in the ED during the weekdays and resolved on Friday, but this pattern was alleviated in post-period. @*Conclusion@#The boarding restriction protocol was effective in alleviating ED crowding by reducing the accumulation of boarding patients in the ED during the weekdays
