829 Prediction of Fibrosis in Nafld – Comparison of Different Scoring Systems Using Routine Laboratory Parameters

Demir, Metin; Lang, Sonja; Schulte, Stephanie; Quasdorff, Maria; Drebber, Uta; Hardt, Aline; Töx, Ulrich; Steffen, H. M.

doi:10.1016/s0168-8278(11)60831-3

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Regarding the type of publication, 70.3% of the studies were full-text articles ( 18 , 20 , 22 , 25 , 26 , 28–31 , 33 , 35 , 37 , 39–42 , 44–50 , 52 , 53 , 55 , 57 , 58 , 60 , 62 , 63 , 65 , 66 , 68 , 70 , 74 , 75 , 77–79 , 82–88 , 90–100 , 103 , 106 , 108 , 109 , 111–122 , 124 , 126 , 128 , 130–135 , 138 , 140–143 , 146 , 147 , 149–154 ), and the remaining 29.7% were conference abstracts ( 19 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 32 , 34 , 36 , 38 , 43 , 51 , 54 , 56 , 60 , 61 , 64 , 67 , 69 , 71–73 , 76 , 80 , 81 , 89 , 101 , 102 , 104 ,...…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The 138 included studies evaluated the nine serological biomarkers (FIB-4; FibroMeter; ELF; NFS; BARD; Hepascore; APRI; FibroTest; Forns score) for liver fibrosis. The most described was the FIB-4, in 89 studies ( 20–26 , 28 , 29 , 32 , 33 , 35 , 37 , 38 , 40 , 44 , 48 , 49 , 52 , 54–56 , 58 , 66 , 67 , 71–75 , 77–80 , 83–86 , 89–91 , 94 , 97–101 , 104–107 , 109 , 110 , 112–115 , 118 , 127–134 , 136 , 137 , 140 , 141 , 143–146 , 148–154 ), followed by the NFS score in 87 studies ( 22–27 , 30–38 , 41 , 42 , 47–49 , 51–56 , 58 , 61 , 66 , 67 , 71 , 73 , 74 , 76 , 77 , 80–84 , 86 , 90 , 95 , 97–101 , 104–107 , 110 , 111 , 113–119 , 121 , 124 , 125 , 127 , 129 ,…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The risk of bias was unclear in 41% of the studies regarding patient selection ( 18 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 31 , 36–38 , 51 , 56 , 59 , 61 , 72 , 73 , 76 , 83 , 85 , 88–90 , 94 , 105 , 107 , 111 , 119 , 120 , 125 , 139 , 142 , 148 , 152 , 155 , 157 ). Concerning the reference standard of the studies, several studies did not describe whether all patients received the reference standard and whether all patients were included in the studies, and therefore, 27% of the studies were unclear about the risk of bias ( 20 , 25 , 30 , 34 , 35 , 46 , 49 , 57 , 59 , 66 , 74 , 79 , 80 , 86 , 91 , 93 , 98 , 100 , 106–109 , 115 , 116 , 118 , 123 , 129 , 130 , 138 , 142–145 , 149 , 150 , 154 , 158 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Accuracy of prognostic serological biomarkers in predicting liver fibrosis severity in people with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: a meta-analysis of over 40,000 participants

López Tórrez,

Ayala,

Ruggiro

et al. 2024

Front. Nutr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionA prognostic model to predict liver severity in people with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is very important, but the accuracy of the most commonly used tools is not yet well established.ObjectiveThe meta-analysis aimed to assess the accuracy of different prognostic serological biomarkers in predicting liver fibrosis severity in people with MASLD.MethodsAdults ≥18 years of age with MASLD were included, with the following: liver biopsy and aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio (APRI), fibrosis index-4 (FIB-4), non-alcoholic fatty liver disease fibrosis score (NFS), body mass index, aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase ratio, diabetes score (BARD score), FibroMeter, FibroTest, enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF), Forns score, and Hepascore. Meta-analyses were performed using a random effects model based on the DerSimonian and Laird methods. The study’s risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2.ResultsIn total, 138 articles were included, of which 86 studies with 46,514 participants met the criteria for the meta-analysis. The results for the summary area under the receiver operating characteristic (sAUROC) curve, according to the prognostic models, were as follows: APRI: advanced fibrosis (AF): 0.78, any fibrosis (AnF): 0.76, significant fibrosis (SF): 0.76, cirrhosis: 0.72; FIB-4: cirrhosis: 0.83, AF: 0.81, AnF: 0.77, SF: 0.75; NFS: SF: 0.81, AF: 0.81, AnF: 0.71, cirrhosis: 0.69; BARD score: SF: 0.77, AF: 0.73; FibroMeter: SF: 0.88, AF: 0.84; FibroTest: SF: 0.86, AF: 0.78; and ELF: AF: 0.87.ConclusionThe results of this meta-analysis suggest that, when comparing the scores of serological biomarkers with liver biopsies, the following models showed better diagnostic accuracy in predicting liver fibrosis severity in people with MASLD: FIB-4 for any fibrosis, FibroMeter for significant fibrosis, ELF for advanced fibrosis, and FIB-4 for cirrhosis.Clinical trial registration: [https://clinicaltrials.gov/], identifier [CRD 42020180525].

show abstract