Literature DB >> 35239088

Efficacy of B-mode ultrasound-based attenuation for the diagnosis of hepatic steatosis: a systematic review/meta-analysis.

Masashi Hirooka1, Yohei Koizumi2, Kotarou Sunago2, Yoshiko Nakamura2, Kana Hirooka3, Takao Watanabe2, Osamu Yoshida2, Yoshio Tokumoto2, Masanori Abe2, Yoichi Hiasa2.   

Abstract

The accuracy of attenuation coefficients and B-mode ultrasound for distinguishing between S0 (healthy, < 5% fat) and S1-3 (steatosis ≥ 5%) livers compared to a controlled attenuation parameter is unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively assess the diagnostic performance of B-mode ultrasound imaging for evaluating steatosis of ≥ 5%. We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases for studies on the accuracy of B-mode ultrasound for differentiating S0 from S1-3 in adults with chronic liver disease. A bivariate random-effects model was performed to estimate the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive (PLR) and negative likelihood ratios (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratios (DORs). Subgroup analyses by attenuation coefficient, conventional B-mode ultrasound findings, and B-mode ultrasound findings without semi-quantification methods were performed. Liver steatosis was scored as follows: S0, < 5%; S1, 5-33%; S2, 33-66%; and S3, > 66%. Nineteen studies involving 3240 patients were analyzed. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of B-mode ultrasound for detecting S1 were 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-0.77) and 0.86 (95% CI 0.82-0.89), respectively. The pooled PLR, NLR, and DOR were 4.90 (95% CI 3.69-6.51), 0.35 (95% CI 0.27- 0.44), and 14.1 (95% CI 8.7-23.0), respectively. The diagnostic accuracy was better in patients with attenuation coefficients (area under the curve [AUC], 0.89; sensitivity, 0.75; specificity, 0.86) than in those with conventional B-mode findings (AUC, 0.80; sensitivity, 0.59; specificity, 0.83). In particular, the diagnostic value was better when the attenuation coefficient guided by B-mode ultrasound was utilized. To screen patients with steatosis of ≥ 5%, attenuation coefficient should be used.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Japan Society of Ultrasonics in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Attenuation coefficient; B-mode ultrasound; Fatty liver; Steatosis

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35239088     DOI: 10.1007/s10396-022-01196-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ultrason (2001)        ISSN: 1346-4523            Impact factor:   1.314


  45 in total

Review 1.  Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

Authors:  Paul Angulo
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-04-18       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 2.  Complications, morbidity and mortality of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

Authors:  Alessandro Mantovani; Eleonora Scorletti; Antonella Mosca; Anna Alisi; Christopher D Byrne; Giovanni Targher
Journal:  Metabolism       Date:  2020-01-30       Impact factor: 8.694

3.  The natural history of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a population-based cohort study.

Authors:  Leon A Adams; James F Lymp; Jenny St Sauver; Schuyler O Sanderson; Keith D Lindor; Ariel Feldstein; Paul Angulo
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 22.682

Review 4.  Human fatty liver disease: old questions and new insights.

Authors:  Jonathan C Cohen; Jay D Horton; Helen H Hobbs
Journal:  Science       Date:  2011-06-24       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) activity score and the histopathologic diagnosis in NAFLD: distinct clinicopathologic meanings.

Authors:  Elizabeth M Brunt; David E Kleiner; Laura A Wilson; Patricia Belt; Brent A Neuschwander-Tetri
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2011-02-11       Impact factor: 17.425

Review 6.  Effect of ethanol on lipid metabolism.

Authors:  Min You; Gavin E Arteel
Journal:  J Hepatol       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 25.083

Review 7.  Pathology of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

Authors:  Pierre Bedossa
Journal:  Liver Int       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 5.828

8.  Design and validation of a histological scoring system for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

Authors:  David E Kleiner; Elizabeth M Brunt; Mark Van Natta; Cynthia Behling; Melissa J Contos; Oscar W Cummings; Linda D Ferrell; Yao-Chang Liu; Michael S Torbenson; Aynur Unalp-Arida; Matthew Yeh; Arthur J McCullough; Arun J Sanyal
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 17.425

9.  Long-term follow-up and liver-related death rate in patients with non-alcoholic and alcoholic related fatty liver disease.

Authors:  Svanhildur Haflidadottir; Jon G Jonasson; Helga Norland; Sylvia O Einarsdottir; David E Kleiner; Sigrun H Lund; Einar S Björnsson
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-09-27       Impact factor: 3.067

Review 10.  Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: Growing Burden, Adverse Outcomes and Associations.

Authors:  Ramesh Kumar; Rajeev Nayan Priyadarshi; Utpal Anand
Journal:  J Clin Transl Hepatol       Date:  2019-12-28
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.