Jinzhen Song1, Zida Ma2, Jianbo Huang3, Shiyu Liu4, Yan Luo5, Qiang Lu6, Philipp Schwabl7, Romanas Zykus8, Ashish Kumar9, Matthew Kitson10. 1. Department of Ultrasound, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 2. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 3. Laboratory of Clinical Ultrasound Imaging Drug Research, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, West China Second University Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 5. Department of Ultrasound, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. wchluoyan@163.com. 6. Department of Ultrasound, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. wsluqiang@126.com. 7. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 8. Department of Gastroenterology, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania. 9. Department of Gastroenterology, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, India. 10. Department of Gastroenterology, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transient elastography-based liver stiffness value (TE-LSV) has been investigated for assessing clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH). The aetiology of CSPH is an important factor determining TE-LSV. There is insufficient evidence for selecting cut-off values. AIMS: This study performed a meta-analysis to compare the three most widely used cut-off values (around 13.6 kPa, 18 kPa and 22kPa) of TE-LSV for the diagnosis of CSPH in patients with chronic viral liver disease. METHODS: The PubMed, Ovid, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Diagnostic data for cut-off values around 13.6 kPa, 18 kPa and 22 kPa in each included study were extracted. The bivariate model was performed to estimate pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR+) and negative likelihood ratio (LR-). RESULTS: Eleven studies assessing 910 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled sensitivities of cut-off values around 13.6 kPa, 18 kPa and 22 kPa were 0.96 (95% CI 0.93-0.97), 0.85 (0.81-0.89) and 0.74 (0.66-0.80), respectively; pooled specificities were 0.60 (0.47-0.75), 0.80 (0.71-0.87) and 0.94 (0.86-0.97), respectively. Pooled LR+ values were 2.4 (1.6-3.7), 4.4 (2.9-6.8) and 11.5 (5.5-23.5) for cut-off values around 13.6 kPa, 18 kPa and 22 kPa, respectively, for pooled LR- values of 0.07 (0.04-0.13), 0.17 (0.12-0.25) and 0.28 (0.22-0.36), respectively. CONCLUSION: Cut-off values around 13.6 kPa (high sensitivity) and 22 kPa (high specificity) could be used as screening and confirmation tools, respectively, in the diagnosis of CSPH. Overall, the cut-off value around 22 kPa showed the best performance. KEY POINTS: Transient elastography-based liver stiffness could be used to diagnose portal hypertension. Comparison of certain cut-off values would provide more information for clinical decision-making. Cut-off around 13.6 kPa was able to exclude clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) effectively. Cut-off around 22 kPa was able to confirm CSPH effectively.
BACKGROUND: Transient elastography-based liver stiffness value (TE-LSV) has been investigated for assessing clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH). The aetiology of CSPH is an important factor determining TE-LSV. There is insufficient evidence for selecting cut-off values. AIMS: This study performed a meta-analysis to compare the three most widely used cut-off values (around 13.6 kPa, 18 kPa and 22kPa) of TE-LSV for the diagnosis of CSPH in patients with chronic viral liver disease. METHODS: The PubMed, Ovid, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Diagnostic data for cut-off values around 13.6 kPa, 18 kPa and 22 kPa in each included study were extracted. The bivariate model was performed to estimate pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR+) and negative likelihood ratio (LR-). RESULTS: Eleven studies assessing 910 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled sensitivities of cut-off values around 13.6 kPa, 18 kPa and 22 kPa were 0.96 (95% CI 0.93-0.97), 0.85 (0.81-0.89) and 0.74 (0.66-0.80), respectively; pooled specificities were 0.60 (0.47-0.75), 0.80 (0.71-0.87) and 0.94 (0.86-0.97), respectively. Pooled LR+ values were 2.4 (1.6-3.7), 4.4 (2.9-6.8) and 11.5 (5.5-23.5) for cut-off values around 13.6 kPa, 18 kPa and 22 kPa, respectively, for pooled LR- values of 0.07 (0.04-0.13), 0.17 (0.12-0.25) and 0.28 (0.22-0.36), respectively. CONCLUSION: Cut-off values around 13.6 kPa (high sensitivity) and 22 kPa (high specificity) could be used as screening and confirmation tools, respectively, in the diagnosis of CSPH. Overall, the cut-off value around 22 kPa showed the best performance. KEY POINTS: Transient elastography-based liver stiffness could be used to diagnose portal hypertension. Comparison of certain cut-off values would provide more information for clinical decision-making. Cut-off around 13.6 kPa was able to exclude clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) effectively. Cut-off around 22 kPa was able to confirm CSPH effectively.
Authors: Philipp Schwabl; Simona Bota; Petra Salzl; Mattias Mandorfer; Berit A Payer; Arnulf Ferlitsch; Judith Stift; Friedrich Wrba; Michael Trauner; Markus Peck-Radosavljevic; Thomas Reiberger Journal: Liver Int Date: 2014-07-09 Impact factor: 5.828
Authors: Bogdan Procopet; Annalisa Berzigotti; Juan G Abraldes; Fanny Turon; Virginia Hernandez-Gea; Juan Carlos García-Pagán; Jaime Bosch Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2014-12-13 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Matthew T Kitson; Stuart K Roberts; John C Colman; Eldho Paul; Peter Button; William Kemp Journal: Scand J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-01-26 Impact factor: 2.423
Authors: Thomas Reiberger; Arnulf Ferlitsch; Berit Anna Payer; Matthias Pinter; Philipp Schwabl; Judith Stift; Michael Trauner; Markus Peck-Radosavljevic Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2012-06-15 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: M Lemoine; S Katsahian; M Ziol; P Nahon; N Ganne-Carrie; F Kazemi; V Grando-Lemaire; J-C Trinchet; M Beaugrand Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2008-11-01 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: C Bureau; S Metivier; J M Peron; J Selves; M A Robic; P A Gourraud; O Rouquet; E Dupuis; L Alric; J P Vinel Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2008-04-04 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Elba Llop; Christie Perelló; Teresa Fontanilla; Juan de la Revilla; Marta Hernández Conde; Marta López; Javier Minaya; Carlos Ferre; Javier Abad; Carlos Fernández Carrillo; José Luís Martínez; Natalia Fernández Puga; María Trapero; Ismael El Hajra; Elena Santos; José Luis Calleja Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-06-22