Comparing the controlled attenuation parameter using FibroScan and attenuation imaging with ultrasound as a novel measurement for liver steatosis

Abstract

Background/Aims In a recent study, attenuation imaging (ATI) with ultrasound was used as a new approach for detecting liver steatosis. However, although there are many studies on ATI and controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) that prove their practicability, there are few studies comparing these two methods. As such, this study compared CAP and ATI for the detection and evaluation of liver steatosis. Methods A prospective analysis of 28 chronic liver disease patients who underwent liver biopsy, FibroScan® imaging, and ATI with ultrasound was conducted. The presence and degree of steatosis, as measured with the FibroScan® device and ATI, were compared with the pathological results obtained using liver biopsy. Results The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of ATI and CAP for differentiating between normal and hepatic steatosis were 0.97 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83–1.00) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.81–0.99), respectively. ATI has a higher AUROC than CAP does in liver steatosis, at 0.99 (95% CI, 0.86–1.00) versus 0.91 (95% CI, 0.74–0.98) in grade ≥ 2 and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.82–1.00) versus 0.88 (95% CI, 0.70–0.97) in grade = 3, respectively. Conclusion The ATI and CAP results showed good consistency and accuracy for the steatosis grading when compared with the liver biopsy results. Moreover, ATI is even better than CAP in patients with moderate or severe steatosis. Therefore, ATI represents a non-invasive and novel diagnostic tool with which to support the diagnosis of liver steatosis in clinical practice.

Effect of Intragastric Botulinum Type A Injection Combined with a Low-Calorie High-Protein Diet in Adults with Overweight or Obesity

“…For adults, the WHO defines overweight as body mass index (BMI) greater than or equal to 25 kg/m 2 , and obesity as BMI greater than or equal to 30 kg/m 2 [ 3 ]. In recent years, obesity trends have increased, raising the likelihood of chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, stroke, diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia, and even increasing mortality and morbidity rates in persons with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ]. In the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association obesity guidelines, all patients recommended for weight loss should be offered or referred for a comprehensive lifestyle intervention [ 8 ].…”

Retraction: Comparing the controlled attenuation parameter using FibroScan and attenuation imaging with ultrasound as a novel measurement for liver steatosis

“…There is also substantial text overlap between the two articles. The earlier publication [ 2 ] evaluated the accuracy of ATI in evaluating liver steatosis, whereas the PLOS ONE article [ 1 ] compared the accuracy of ATI and controlled attenuation parameter in evaluating liver steatosis.…”

“…This issue was discussed with the authors. The first author acknowledged that the same cohort of patients and ATI data is reported in both articles [ 1 , 2 ]. While the articles address different research questions, the reuse of content was not acknowledged in [ 1 ].…”

“…The ethics approval number (210202) in [ 1 ] is also reported in several articles by some of the same authors, including [ 3 – 7 ], which describe studies and patient cohorts different to those reported in [ 1 ]. Additionally, discrepancies were identified between the description of the study design in [ 1 ] and the ethics approval documentation provided during discussions.…”

“…The first author stated that the same approval number (210202) was obtained for multiple different studies [ 1 , 3 – 7 ] as the applications for approval for all the studies were made to the IRB together. They also acknowledged that the study described in [ 1 ] was retrospective, which conflicts with the description of the study design in [ 1 ]. The editors remain concerned regarding the approval of multiple different studies together and that the study design is not accurately reported in [ 1 ].…”