CONTEXT: Among adult patients with liver disease, the ability to identify those most likely to have cirrhosis noninvasively is challenging. OBJECTIVE: To identify simple clinical indicators that can exclude or detect cirrhosis in adults with known or suspected liver disease. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (1966 to December 2011) and reference lists from retrieved articles, previous reviews, and physical examination textbooks. STUDY SELECTION: We retained 86 studies of adequate quality that evaluated the accuracy of clinical findings for identifying histologically proven cirrhosis. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently abstracted data (sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios [LRs]) and assessed methodological quality. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate summary LRs across studies. RESULTS: Among the 86 studies, 19,533 patients were included in this meta-analysis, among whom 4725 had biopsy-proven cirrhosis (prevalence rate, 24%; 95% CI, 20%-28%). Many physical examination and simple laboratory tests increase the likelihood of cirrhosis, though the presence of ascites (LR, 7.2; 95% CI, 2.9-12), a platelet count <160 x 10(3)/μL (LR, 6.3; 95% CI, 4.3-8.3), spider nevi (LR, 4.3; 95% CI 2.4-6.2), or a combination of simple laboratory tests with the Bonacini cirrhosis discriminant score >7 (LR, 9.4; 95% CI, 2.6-37) are the most frequently studied, reliable, and informative results. For lowering the likelihood of cirrhosis, the most useful findings are a Lok index <0.2 (a score created from the platelet count, serum aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase, and prothrombin international normalized ratio; LR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.03-0.31); a platelet count ≥160 x 10(3)/μL (LR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.20-0.39); or the absence of hepatomegaly (LR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.24-0.51). The overall impression of the clinician was not as informative as the individual findings or laboratory combinations. CONCLUSIONS: For identifying cirrhosis, the presence of a variety of clinical findings or abnormalities in a combination of simple laboratory tests that reflect the underlying pathophysiology increase its likelihood. To exclude cirrhosis, combinations of normal laboratory findings are most useful.
CONTEXT: Among adult patients with liver disease, the ability to identify those most likely to have cirrhosis noninvasively is challenging. OBJECTIVE: To identify simple clinical indicators that can exclude or detect cirrhosis in adults with known or suspected liver disease. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (1966 to December 2011) and reference lists from retrieved articles, previous reviews, and physical examination textbooks. STUDY SELECTION: We retained 86 studies of adequate quality that evaluated the accuracy of clinical findings for identifying histologically proven cirrhosis. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently abstracted data (sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios [LRs]) and assessed methodological quality. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate summary LRs across studies. RESULTS: Among the 86 studies, 19,533 patients were included in this meta-analysis, among whom 4725 had biopsy-proven cirrhosis (prevalence rate, 24%; 95% CI, 20%-28%). Many physical examination and simple laboratory tests increase the likelihood of cirrhosis, though the presence of ascites (LR, 7.2; 95% CI, 2.9-12), a platelet count <160 x 10(3)/μL (LR, 6.3; 95% CI, 4.3-8.3), spider nevi (LR, 4.3; 95% CI 2.4-6.2), or a combination of simple laboratory tests with the Bonacini cirrhosis discriminant score >7 (LR, 9.4; 95% CI, 2.6-37) are the most frequently studied, reliable, and informative results. For lowering the likelihood of cirrhosis, the most useful findings are a Lok index <0.2 (a score created from the platelet count, serum aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase, and prothrombin international normalized ratio; LR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.03-0.31); a platelet count ≥160 x 10(3)/μL (LR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.20-0.39); or the absence of hepatomegaly (LR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.24-0.51). The overall impression of the clinician was not as informative as the individual findings or laboratory combinations. CONCLUSIONS: For identifying cirrhosis, the presence of a variety of clinical findings or abnormalities in a combination of simple laboratory tests that reflect the underlying pathophysiology increase its likelihood. To exclude cirrhosis, combinations of normal laboratory findings are most useful.
Authors: Michele M Tana; Xiongce Zhao; Alyson Bradshaw; Mi Sun Moon; Sandy Page; Tiffany Turner; Elenita Rivera; David E Kleiner; Theo Heller Journal: Thromb Res Date: 2015-02-19 Impact factor: 3.944
Authors: Ying Shi; Xing-Hua Wang; Huan-Hu Zhang; Hai-Qing Zhang; Ji-Zheng Tu; Kun Wei; Juan Li; Xiao-Li Liu Journal: Int J Clin Exp Med Date: 2014-04-15
Authors: Hannu T Huhdanpaa; Peng Zhang; Venkataramu N Krishnamurthy; Chris Douville; Binu Enchakolody; Chris Chou; Sampathkumar Ethiraj; Stewart Wang; Grace L Su Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Jeanne M Horowitz; Sudhakar K Venkatesh; Richard L Ehman; Kartik Jhaveri; Patrick Kamath; Michael A Ohliger; Anthony E Samir; Alvin C Silva; Bachir Taouli; Michael S Torbenson; Michael L Wells; Benjamin Yeh; Frank H Miller Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2017-08