Ruben Hernaez1,2,3, Mariana Lazo1, Susanne Bonekamp4, Ihab Kamel4, Frederick L Brancati1,3,5, Eliseo Guallar3,5,6, Jeanne M Clark1,3,5. 1. Department of Medicine The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 2. Department of Medicine, Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC. 3. Department of Epidemiology, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD. 4. Department of Radiology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 5. Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. 6. Department of Cardiovascular Epidemiology and Population Genetics, National Center for Cardiovascular Research (CNIC), Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Ultrasonography is a widely accessible imaging technique for the detection of fatty liver, but the reported accuracy and reliability have been inconsistent across studies. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy and reliability of ultrasonography for the detection of fatty liver. We used MEDLINE and Embase from October 1967 to March 2010. Studies that provided cross-tabulations of ultrasonography versus histology or standard imaging techniques, or that provided reliability data for ultrasonography, were included. Study variables were independently abstracted by three reviewers and double checked by one reviewer. Forty-nine (4720 participants) studies were included for the meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio of ultrasound for the detection of moderate-severe fatty liver, compared to histology (gold standard), were 84.8% (95% confidence interval: 79.5-88.9), 93.6% (87.2-97.0), 13.3 (6.4-27.6), and 0.16 (0.12-0.22), respectively. The area under the summary receiving operating characteristics curve was 0.93 (0.91-0.95). Reliability of ultrasound for the detection of fatty liver showed kappa statistics ranging from 0.54 to 0.92 for intrarater reliability and from 0.44 to 1.00 for interrater reliability. Sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound was similar to that of other imaging techniques (i.e., computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging). Statistical heterogeneity was present even after stratification for multiple clinically relevant characteristics. CONCLUSION: Ultrasonography allows for reliable and accurate detection of moderate-severe fatty liver, compared to histology. Because of its low cost, safety, and accessibility, ultrasound is likely the imaging technique of choice for screening for fatty liver in clinical and population settings.
UNLABELLED: Ultrasonography is a widely accessible imaging technique for the detection of fatty liver, but the reported accuracy and reliability have been inconsistent across studies. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy and reliability of ultrasonography for the detection of fatty liver. We used MEDLINE and Embase from October 1967 to March 2010. Studies that provided cross-tabulations of ultrasonography versus histology or standard imaging techniques, or that provided reliability data for ultrasonography, were included. Study variables were independently abstracted by three reviewers and double checked by one reviewer. Forty-nine (4720 participants) studies were included for the meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio of ultrasound for the detection of moderate-severe fatty liver, compared to histology (gold standard), were 84.8% (95% confidence interval: 79.5-88.9), 93.6% (87.2-97.0), 13.3 (6.4-27.6), and 0.16 (0.12-0.22), respectively. The area under the summary receiving operating characteristics curve was 0.93 (0.91-0.95). Reliability of ultrasound for the detection of fatty liver showed kappa statistics ranging from 0.54 to 0.92 for intrarater reliability and from 0.44 to 1.00 for interrater reliability. Sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound was similar to that of other imaging techniques (i.e., computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging). Statistical heterogeneity was present even after stratification for multiple clinically relevant characteristics. CONCLUSION: Ultrasonography allows for reliable and accurate detection of moderate-severe fatty liver, compared to histology. Because of its low cost, safety, and accessibility, ultrasound is likely the imaging technique of choice for screening for fatty liver in clinical and population settings.
Authors: Patrick M Bossuyt; Johannes B Reitsma; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Paul P Glasziou; Les M Irwig; David Moher; Drummond Rennie; Henrica C W de Vet; Jeroen G Lijmer Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-01-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Brent A Neuschwander-Tetri; Jeanne M Clark; Nathan M Bass; Mark L Van Natta; Aynur Unalp-Arida; James Tonascia; Claudia O Zein; Elizabeth M Brunt; David E Kleiner; Arthur J McCullough; Arun J Sanyal; Anna Mae Diehl; Joel E Lavine; Naga Chalasani; Kris V Kowdley Journal: Hepatology Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: S Saitoh; T Nagamine; H Takagi; T Sekiguchi; M Uehara; K Yuasa; S Saeki; H Takahashi; T Arai; J Takezawa Journal: Nihon Shokakibyo Gakkai Zasshi Date: 1988-12
Authors: G Castellano; A González; F Colina; S Rodríguez; M T Muñoz; F Sánchez; C Garfia; B Casis; I Fernández; F Canga Journal: Rev Esp Enferm Dig Date: 1993-12 Impact factor: 2.086
Authors: Mariana Lazo; Steven F Solga; Alena Horska; Susanne Bonekamp; Anna Mae Diehl; Frederick L Brancati; Lynne E Wagenknecht; F Xavier Pi-Sunyer; Steven E Kahn; Jeanne M Clark Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2010-07-27 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Irina Salueña; Luis Ortega; María J Devesa; Gustavo López-Alonso; Carlos Taxonera; Manuel Díaz-Rubio; José M Ladero Journal: Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2007 Jun-Jul Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Mireille A Edens; Peter M A van Ooijen; Wendy J Post; Mark J F Haagmans; Wisnumurti Kristanto; Paul E Sijens; Erik J van der Jagt; Ronald P Stolk Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2009-05-21 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Bárbara L Riestra-Candelaria; Loida A González-Rodríguez; Wilma Rodriguez-Mojica; Luis E Vázquez-Quiñones; Juan Carlos Jorge Journal: J Diagn Med Sonogr Date: 2019-03-08
Authors: A L L Rocha; L C Faria; T C M Guimarães; G V Moreira; A L Cândido; C A Couto; F M Reis Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2017-06-13 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Yingzhen N Zhang; Kathryn J Fowler; Gavin Hamilton; Jennifer Y Cui; Ethan Z Sy; Michelle Balanay; Jonathan C Hooker; Nikolaus Szeverenyi; Claude B Sirlin Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-06-06 Impact factor: 3.039