Correction to: Comparison of diffusion‑weighted imaging and MR elastography in staging liver fibrosis: a meta‑analysis (Abdominal Radiology, (2021), 46, 8, (3889-3907), 10.1007/s00261-021-03055-2)

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The author says that articles Chen et al. 2014 (reference 53) and Fu et al. 2016 (reference 49) cited in Table 1 report the same cohorts and data. Thus, Fu et al. 2016 (reference 49) should be excluded from this analysis which is listed below: Fu F, Shi D, Zhu S, et al. (2016) Evaluation of hepatic fibrosisby using stretched-exponential and mono-exponential diffusionweightedMR imaging. International Journal of Clinical andExperimental Medicine 9(11):21358 -21367 Fu F, Shi D, Zhu S, et al. (2016) Evaluation of hepatic fibrosisby using stretched-exponential and mono-exponential diffusionweightedMR imaging. International Journal of Clinical andExperimental Medicine 9(11):21358 -21367 This does not affect the results and conclusions presented. Here is theupdated Table 1 and reference section. (Table presented.) Characteristics of studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of DWI Study No. of patient Distribution of fibrosis stage 0/1/2/3/4 Interval between DWI and biopsy (day) Magnetic field strength (T) Breathing method b-value used MR scanner Lewin et al. 54 1/30/8/6/10 NR 1.5 RT 0,200,400,800 Symphony, Siemens Taouli et al. 30 11/5/4/4/6 42 1.5 BH 0,50,300,500,700,1000 Avanto, Siemens Taouli et al. 44 15/7/2/6/14 51 1.5 BH 0,500 Gyroscan Intera, Philips Sandrasegaran et al. 78 11/16/10/14/27 75 1.5 BH 50,400 Avanto, Siemens Do et al. 56 22/7/5/4/21 32 1.5 BH 0,50,500 Avanto, Sonata, and Symphony, Siemens Bonekamp et al. 88 33/20/2/6/27 < 365 1.5 BH 0,750 Signa, GE; Avanto, Siemens Fujimoto et al. 55 12/9/11/11/12 7 1.5 RT 0,1000 Symphony, Siemens Ibrahim et al. 76 38/20/12/5/1 10 1.5 FB 300,500,700,1000 Achieva, Philips Kovac et al. 44 0/14/3/6/21 15 1.5 RT 0,800 Avanto, Siemens Vaziri-Bozorg et al. 44 11/11/11/11/0 < 60 1.5 BH 0,500,700,1000 Signa, GE Catanzaro et al. 72 F0–F1: 20/14, F3–F4: 38 NR 1.5 RT 0,500 Avanto, Siemens Kovac et al. 38 0/5/12/8/13 60 1.5 RT 0,800 Avanto, Siemens Bonekamp et al. 85 35/17/2/7/24 37 1.5 BH 0,750 Signa, GE; Avanto, Siemens Chen et al. 35 10/4/9/11/1 < 30 3.0 RT 0,50,100,200,400,600,800 Discovery, GE Hong et al. 76 18/14/14/20/10 27 3.0 RT 0,200,600,800 Signa, GE Razek et al. 70 20/12/22/7/9 60 1.5 FB 0,400,800 Symphony, Siemens Tokgoz et al. 138 70/32/15/7/14 NR 1.5 NR 0,600 Gyroscan Intera, Philips Yoon et al. 55 11/7/7/9/21 NR 3.0 BH 0,25,50,75,100,200, 500,800 Verio, Siemens Zaiton et al. 102 0/35/22/25/20 10 ± 6 1.5 RT 200,500,700,1000 Achieva, Philips Chung et al. 57 21/1/6/7/22 15.9 1.5 RT 0,30,60,100,150,200, 400,600,900 Avanto, Siemens Ding et al. 145 34/7/12/14/78 NR 1.5 FB 0,500 Aera, Siemens Kocakoc et al. 44 F0–F1: 22, F2–F4: 23 NR 1.5 NR 100,600,1000 NR, GE Murphy et al. 89 36/28/11/9/5 NR 3.0 FB 0,100,500 Signa, GE Parente et al. 59 43/9/5/F3–F4: 2 NR 3.0 RT 0,10,20,40,80,160,200,400,800,1000 Achieva, Philips Feier et al. 77 21/7/8/12/29 45 ± 2 3.0 NR 50,300,600 Magnetom Trio, Siemens Emara et al. 50 9/16/7/15/3 30 1.5 NR 0,500 Gyroscan Intera, Philips Taha et al. 44 14/6/5/8/11 NR 1.5 BH 0,500 Achieva, Philips Shayesteh et al. 68 31/10/10/12/5 NR 1.5 RT 600,1000 Optima, GE Yang et al. 81 6/11/13/15/26 NR 1.5 FB 0,200,500,1000,1500, 2000 Aera, Siemens Wang et al. 76 32/12/6/6/20 60 1.5 NR 50,500,1000 Espree, Siemens Ichikawa et al. 129 19/13/14/19/64 < 90 3.0 RT 0,10,20,30,40,50,80, 100,200,500,1000 Discovery, GE Hennedige et al. 63 12/12/10/8/21 62.6 1.5