4.6 Article

A prospective comparative assessment of the accuracy of the FibroScan in evaluating liver steatosis

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 12, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182784

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Soonchunhyang University Research Fund [20130614]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/aims Recent studies have demonstrated the utility of the FibroScan (R) device in diagnosing liver steatosis, but its usefulness has not been thoroughly appraised. We investigated the usefulness of the controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) in detecting and quantifying liver steatosis. Methods A prospective analysis was applied to 79 chronic liver disease patients who underwent a liver biopsy, a FibroScan investigation, ultrasonography, and hepatic steatosis index (HSI). The presence and degree of steatosis as measured by the FibroScan device, ultrasonography and HSI were compared with the results for the liver biopsy tissue. Results There was substantial concordance between the liver biopsy results and the CAP as evaluated by the kappa (k) index test for detecting liver steatosis (k(CAP) = 0.77, P< 0.001; k(ultrasonography) = 0.60, P<0.001; k(HSI) = 0.47, P< 0.001). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCs) of the CAP, ultrasonography, and HSI were 0.899 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.826-0.972)], 0.859 (95% CI = 0.779-0.939), and 0.766 (95% CI = 0.655-0.877), respectively. The optimal CAP cutoff value for differentiating between normal and hepatic steatosis was 247 dB/m, which produced sensitivity and specificity values of 91.9% and 85.7%, respectively, as well as a positive predictive value of 85.0% and a negative predictive value of 92.3%. Conclusion The CAP produces results that are highly concordant with those of a liver biopsy in detecting steatosis. Therefore, the CAP is a noninvasive and reliable tool for evaluating liver steatosis, even in the early stages.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available