OBJECTIVE: Transient elastography (TE) is gaining popularity as a non-invasive method for predicting liver fibrosis, but intraobserver and interobserver agreement and factors influencing TE reproducibility have not been adequately assessed. This study investigated these aspects. SETTING: Tertiary referral liver unit. PATIENTS: Over a 4-month period, 200 patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) with varying aetiology consecutively underwent TE and liver biopsy. INTERVENTIONS: TE was performed twice by two different operators either concomitantly or within 3 days of the bioptic procedure (METAVIR classification). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intraobserver and interobserver agreement were analysed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and correlated with different patient-related and liver disease-related covariates. RESULTS: 800 TE examinations were performed, with an indeterminate result rate of 2.4%. The overall interobserver agreement ICC was 0.98 (95% CI 0.977 to 0.987). Increased body mass index (>25 kg/m(2)), steatosis, and low staging grades (fibrosis (F) stage <2) were significantly associated with reduced ICC (p<0.05). Intraobserver agreement ICC was 0.98 for both raters. Using receiver operating characteristic curves, three diagnostic TE thresholds were identified: >7.9 kPa for F>/=2, >10.3 for F>/=3 and >11.9 for F = 4. TE values assessed by the two raters fell within the same cut-off of fibrosis in 88% of the cases for F>/=2, in 92% for F>/=3 and 91% for F = 4. CONCLUSIONS: TE is a highly reproducible and user-friendly technique for assessing liver fibrosis in patients with CLD. However, because TE reproducibility is significantly reduced (p<0.05) in patients with steatosis, increased BMI and lower degrees of hepatic fibrosis, caution is warranted in the clinical use of TE as a surrogate for liver biopsy.
OBJECTIVE: Transient elastography (TE) is gaining popularity as a non-invasive method for predicting liver fibrosis, but intraobserver and interobserver agreement and factors influencing TE reproducibility have not been adequately assessed. This study investigated these aspects. SETTING: Tertiary referral liver unit. PATIENTS: Over a 4-month period, 200 patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) with varying aetiology consecutively underwent TE and liver biopsy. INTERVENTIONS: TE was performed twice by two different operators either concomitantly or within 3 days of the bioptic procedure (METAVIR classification). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intraobserver and interobserver agreement were analysed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and correlated with different patient-related and liver disease-related covariates. RESULTS: 800 TE examinations were performed, with an indeterminate result rate of 2.4%. The overall interobserver agreement ICC was 0.98 (95% CI 0.977 to 0.987). Increased body mass index (>25 kg/m(2)), steatosis, and low staging grades (fibrosis (F) stage <2) were significantly associated with reduced ICC (p<0.05). Intraobserver agreement ICC was 0.98 for both raters. Using receiver operating characteristic curves, three diagnostic TE thresholds were identified: >7.9 kPa for F>/=2, >10.3 for F>/=3 and >11.9 for F = 4. TE values assessed by the two raters fell within the same cut-off of fibrosis in 88% of the cases for F>/=2, in 92% for F>/=3 and 91% for F = 4. CONCLUSIONS: TE is a highly reproducible and user-friendly technique for assessing liver fibrosis in patients with CLD. However, because TE reproducibility is significantly reduced (p<0.05) in patients with steatosis, increased BMI and lower degrees of hepatic fibrosis, caution is warranted in the clinical use of TE as a surrogate for liver biopsy.
Authors: Christophe Corpechot; Ahmed El Naggar; Armelle Poujol-Robert; Marianne Ziol; Dominique Wendum; Olivier Chazouillères; Victor de Lédinghen; Daniel Dhumeaux; Patrick Marcellin; Michel Beaugrand; Raoul Poupon Journal: Hepatology Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: J Foucher; E Chanteloup; J Vergniol; L Castéra; B Le Bail; X Adhoute; J Bertet; P Couzigou; V de Lédinghen Journal: Gut Date: 2005-07-14 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Gavin Arteel; Luis Marsano; Christian Mendez; Frederick Bentley; Craig J McClain Journal: Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 3.043
Authors: Patrick M Bossuyt; Johannes B Reitsma; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Paul P Glasziou; Les M Irwig; Jeroen G Lijmer; David Moher; Drummond Rennie; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Keyur Patel; Mireen Friedrich-Rust; Yoav Lurie; Mircea Grigorescu; Carol Stanciu; Chuan-Mo Lee; Eugene R Schiff; Dieter Häussinger; Michael P Manns; Guido Gerken; Isabelle Colle; Michael Torbenson; Erik Pulkstenis; G Mani Subramanian; John G McHutchison; Stefan Zeuzem Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2011-11-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Giovanna Ferraioli; Carmine Tinelli; Barbara Dal Bello; Mabel Zicchetti; Raffaella Lissandrin; Gaetano Filice; Carlo Filice; Elisabetta Above; Giorgio Barbarini; Enrico Brunetti; Willy Calderon; Marta Di Gregorio; Roberto Gulminetti; Paolo Lanzarini; Serena Ludovisi; Laura Maiocchi; Antonello Malfitano; Giuseppe Michelone; Lorenzo Minoli; Mario Mondelli; Stefano Novati; Savino F A Patruno; Alessandro Perretti; Gianluigi Poma; Paolo Sacchi; Domenico Zanaboni; Marco Zaramella Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Dalia Omran; Ayman Yosry; Samar K Darweesh; Mohammed M Nabeel; Mohammed El-Beshlawey; Sameh Saif; Azza Fared; Mohamed Hassany; Rania A Zayed Journal: Clin Exp Med Date: 2017-05-31 Impact factor: 3.984