4.5 Article

Comparison of FibroTouch and FibroScan for staging fibrosis in chronic liver disease: Single-center prospective study

期刊

DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE
卷 51, 期 9, 页码 1323-1329

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2019.02.009

关键词

FibroScan; FibroTouch; Liver fibrosis; Liver stiffness

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81670569]
  2. Shanghai Sanitation Bureau Project [201540038]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the FibroTouch and FibroScan in patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) for staging fibrosis. Methods: A prospective study was conducted in 435 CLD patients between 2014 and 2017. Index tests (FibroTouch, FibroScan, APRI, and FIB-4 score) and a reference standard (liver biopsy) were performed within one week. Results: The area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) of the FibroTouch was similar with that of the FibroScan for the diagnosis of significant fibrosis, severe fibrosis, or cirrhosis; however, the AUROC of the FibroTouch was higher than that of APRI or FIB-4 (p<0.001). There was a significant correlation (rho = 0.85, p<0.001) between the FibroTouch and FibroScan for liver stiffness. The overall diagnostic accuracy of FibroTouch for significant fibrosis, severe fibrosis, or cirrhosis was 73.3%, 83.2%, or 84.1%, respectively. No significant differences between the FibroTouch and FibroScan were detected regarding the sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, and accuracy. The optimal cut-off values for each stage of fibrosis were similar between the FibroTouch and FibroScan. Conclusion: The FibroTouch is a valuable diagnostic tool for diagnosing liver fibrosis with good diagnostic accuracy which was comparable with that of the FibroScan, but superior to that of the APRI and FIB-4. (C) 2019 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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