4.6 Article

Usefulness of six non-proprietary indirect markers of liver fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C

Journal

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY AND LABORATORY MEDICINE
Volume 46, Issue 2, Pages 253-259

Publisher

WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH
DOI: 10.1515/CCLM.2008.051

Keywords

hepatitis C; indirect markers of liver fibrosis; liver fibrosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The aim of the study was to perform a comprehensive diagnostic evaluation of six popular, non-proprietary, indirect markers of liver fibrosis in a cohort of patients with chronic hepatitis C representing the full spectrum of disease severity. Methods: A total of 167 consecutive, hepatitis C virus RNA positive, untreated patients with chronic hepatitis C were studied. Liver biopsy with histological evaluation and age/platelet index, aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase ratio, aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio index, Bonacini's discriminant score, Forn's fibrosis index and Fibro-Index were assessed in all patients. Results: The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of the six tests was always greater when performed to discriminate patients with METAVIR score F4 than when assessed to discriminate patients with METAVIR score >= F2. At step-wise discriminant analysis the only indirect marker of fibrosis entered was Fibrolndex, with the following correct classification of the patients: total =52.1, patients with scores F0-F1 = 62.2, patients with scores F2-F3 = 26.0 and patients with score F4=68.4. Conclusions: The ability to correctly classify patients using a panel of non-proprietary indirect markers of liver fibrosis is far from being ideal. Among them, Fibroindex appears to possess the best discriminating capacity. The simultaneous use of several indirect markers of liver fibrosis does not improve their diagnostic accuracy.

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