C S Pavlov1,2, G Casazza1,3, D Nikolova1, E Tsochatzis4, C Gluud1. 1. The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group, Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. 2. Clinic of Internal Diseases Propedeutics, Gastroenterology and Hepatology, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia. 3. Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche e Cliniche "L. Sacco", Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy. 4. Sheila Sherlock Liver Centre, Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive Health, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The progression of hepatic fibrosis into cirrhosis is a main prognostic factor for survival in people with alcoholic liver disease. The range of cut-off values characterising the stage of hepatic fibrosis seems to be dependent on the aetiology of the liver disease. AIMS: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of transient elastography (the index test) for diagnosis of fibrosis in alcoholic liver disease when compared with liver biopsy (the reference standard), using the METAVIR scoring system. To establish the optimal cut-off values for the hepatic fibrosis stages. METHODS: We followed Cochrane Methodology for diagnostic test accuracy reviews. We identified 14 studies. Among the study participants with alcoholic liver disease, 834 provided numerical data for analysis (August 2014). Only half of the studies were monoaetiology studies. We used the bivariate model and estimated the summary sensitivities and summary specificities. Hence, we calculated the summary likelihood ratios (LRs) to rule in or rule out hepatic fibrosis. We investigated pre-defined sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS: Severe fibrosis (F3 or worse): summary (95% CI) sensitivity 0.92(0.89-0.96) and specificity 0.70(0.61-0.79); LR+ 3.1(2.1-4.1), LR- 0.11(95% CI 0.06-0.16). Cirrhosis (F4): summary (95% CI) sensitivity of 0.95(0.87-0.98) and specificity 0.71(0.56-0.82); LR+ 3.3(2.1-5.0); LR- 0.07(0.03-0.19). CONCLUSIONS: Transient elastography may be used as a diagnostic method to exclude cirrhosis or severe fibrosis when the test is negative. Cut-off values of around 12.5 kPa for cirrhosis may be used in clinical practice, but caution is needed, as the values reported in the review are not yet prospectively validated.
BACKGROUND: The progression of hepatic fibrosis into cirrhosis is a main prognostic factor for survival in people with alcoholic liver disease. The range of cut-off values characterising the stage of hepatic fibrosis seems to be dependent on the aetiology of the liver disease. AIMS: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of transient elastography (the index test) for diagnosis of fibrosis in alcoholic liver disease when compared with liver biopsy (the reference standard), using the METAVIR scoring system. To establish the optimal cut-off values for the hepatic fibrosis stages. METHODS: We followed Cochrane Methodology for diagnostic test accuracy reviews. We identified 14 studies. Among the study participants with alcoholic liver disease, 834 provided numerical data for analysis (August 2014). Only half of the studies were monoaetiology studies. We used the bivariate model and estimated the summary sensitivities and summary specificities. Hence, we calculated the summary likelihood ratios (LRs) to rule in or rule out hepatic fibrosis. We investigated pre-defined sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS: Severe fibrosis (F3 or worse): summary (95% CI) sensitivity 0.92(0.89-0.96) and specificity 0.70(0.61-0.79); LR+ 3.1(2.1-4.1), LR- 0.11(95% CI 0.06-0.16). Cirrhosis (F4): summary (95% CI) sensitivity of 0.95(0.87-0.98) and specificity 0.71(0.56-0.82); LR+ 3.3(2.1-5.0); LR- 0.07(0.03-0.19). CONCLUSIONS: Transient elastography may be used as a diagnostic method to exclude cirrhosis or severe fibrosis when the test is negative. Cut-off values of around 12.5 kPa for cirrhosis may be used in clinical practice, but caution is needed, as the values reported in the review are not yet prospectively validated.
Authors: Mário Jorge Silva; Carlos Bernardes; João Pinto; Rafaela Loureiro; Pedro Duarte; Milena Mendes; Filipe Calinas Journal: GE Port J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-11-18
Authors: Charlie C Park; Phirum Nguyen; Carolyn Hernandez; Ricki Bettencourt; Kimberly Ramirez; Lynda Fortney; Jonathan Hooker; Ethan Sy; Michael T Savides; Mosab H Alquiraish; Mark A Valasek; Emily Rizo; Lisa Richards; David Brenner; Claude B Sirlin; Rohit Loomba Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2016-10-27 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Philip N Newsome; Rob Cramb; Suzanne M Davison; John F Dillon; Mark Foulerton; Edmund M Godfrey; Richard Hall; Ulrike Harrower; Mark Hudson; Andrew Langford; Anne Mackie; Robert Mitchell-Thain; Karen Sennett; Nicholas C Sheron; Julia Verne; Martine Walmsley; Andrew Yeoman Journal: Gut Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Marcin Krawczyk; Simone Zimmermann; Georg Hess; Robert Holz; Marc Dauer; Jochen Raedle; Frank Lammert; Frank Grünhage Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-03-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Xiaolong Qi; Min An; Tongwei Wu; Deke Jiang; Mengyun Peng; Weidong Wang; Jing Wang; Chunqing Zhang; On Behalf Of The Chess Study Group Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2018-05-24
Authors: Yingzhen N Zhang; Kathryn J Fowler; Arinc Ozturk; Chetan K Potu; Ashley L Louie; Vivian Montes; Walter C Henderson; Kang Wang; Michael P Andre; Anthony E Samir; Claude B Sirlin Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-03-12 Impact factor: 4.813