4.4 Article

Chronic Hepatitis C Patients with Obesity: Do We Need Two Operators for Accurate Evaluation of Liver Stiffness?

Journal

ANNALS OF HEPATOLOGY
Volume 17, Issue 5, Pages 795-801

Publisher

MEXICAN ASSOC HEPATOLOGY
DOI: 10.5604/01.3001.0012.3138

Keywords

Transient elastography; FibroScan; Inter observer variability; Chronic hepatitis C; BMI

Funding

  1. Science Technology Developmental Fund (STDF) grant, Egyptian Ministry of higher education and scientific researh [TC/2/Health/2010/hep-1.6, 3512]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction and aim. Transient elastography is gaining popularity as a non-invasive method for predicting liver fibrosis, but inter observer agreement and factors influencing reproducibility have not been adequately assessed. Material and methods. This cross-sectional study was conducted at Specialized Medical Hospital and the Egyptian Liver Foundation, Mansoura, Egypt. The inclusion criteria were: age older than 18 years and chronic infection by hepatitis C. The exclusion criteria were the presence of ascites, pacemaker or pregnancy. Three hundred and fifty-six patients participated in the study. Therefore, 356 pairs of exams were done by two operators on the same day. Results. The overall inter observer agreement ICC was 0.921. The correlation the two operators was excellent (Spearman's value q = 0.808, p < 0.001). Inter-observer reliability values were kappa = 0.557 (p < 0.001). A not negligible discordance of fibrosis staging between operators was observed (87 cases, 24.4%). Discordance of at least one stage and for two or more stages of fibrosis occurred in 60 (16.9%) and 27 cases (7.6%) respectively. Obesity (BMI >= 30 kg/m(2)) is the main factor associated with discordance (p = 0.002). Conclusion. Although liver stiffness measurement has had an excellent correlation between the two operators, TE presented an inter-observer variability that may not be negligible.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available