4.6 Article

Performance of Transient Elastography for the Staging of Liver Fibrosis in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B: A Meta-Analysis

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 7, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0044930

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Korea Healthcare Technology R & D Project, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea [A102065]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Transient elastography (TE), a non-invasive tool that measures liver stiffness, has been evaluated in meta-analyses for effectiveness in assessing liver fibrosis in European populations with chronic hepatitis C(CHC). However, these data cannot be extrapolated to populations in Asian countries, where chronic hepatitis B(CHB) is more prevalent. In this study, we performed a meta-analysis to assess the overall performance of TE for assessing liver fibrosis in patients with CHB. Methods: Studies from the literature and international conference abstracts which enrolled only patients with CHB or performed a subgroup analysis of such patients were enrolled. Combined effects were calculated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC) and diagnostic accuracy values of each study. Result: A total of 18 studies comprising 2,772 patients were analyzed. The mean AUROCs for the diagnosis of significant fibrosis (F2), severe fibrosis (F3), and cirrhosis (F4) were 0.859 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.857-0.860), 0.887 (95% CI, 0.886-0.887), and 0.929 (95% CI, 0.928-0.929), respectively. The estimated cutoff for F2 was 7.9 (range, 6.1-11.8) kPa, with a sensitivity of 74.3% and specificity of 78.3%. For F3, the cutoff value was determined to be 8.8 (range, 8.1-9.7) kPa, with a sensitivity of 74.0% and specificity of 63.8%. The cutoff value for F4 was 11.7 (range, 7.3-17.5) kPa, with a sensitivity of 84.6% and specificity of 81.5%. Conclusion: TE can be performed with good diagnostic accuracy for quantifying liver fibrosis in patients with CHB.

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