4.7 Review

Systematic review with meta-analysis: diagnostic accuracy of transient elastography for staging of fibrosis in people with alcoholic liver disease

期刊

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 43, 期 5, 页码 575-585

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apt.13524

关键词

-

资金

  1. EASL Sheila Sherlock

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundThe 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. AimsTo 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. MethodsWe 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. ResultsSevere 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). ConclusionsTransient elastography may be used as a diagnostic method to exclude cirrhosis or severe fibrosis when the test is negative. Cut-off values of around 12.5kPa for cirrhosis may be used in clinical practice, but caution is needed, as the values reported in the review are not yet prospectively validated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据