4.3 Article

Risk stratification of adolescents for the screening of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

期刊

PEDIATRIC OBESITY
卷 17, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ijpo.12924

关键词

non-alcoholic fatty liver; screening; transient elastography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Screening for non-alcoholic fatty liver in adolescents can have a significant impact on reducing the risk of premature mortality in adulthood. Stratifying individuals based on body mass index and metabolic parameters can effectively reduce the number of individuals that need to be screened.
Background Non-alcoholic fatty liver conditions in adolescence are associated with premature mortality in adulthood. Effective screening could impact the population burden of this disease. Objectives We sought to determine which adolescents should be screened for non-alcoholic fatty liver using vibration-controlled transient elastography. Methods We simulated a non-alcoholic fatty liver screening program of 938 adolescents from the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey of 2017/2018. We stratified subjects by body mass index and metabolic parameters and analyzed our data using standard diagnostic statistical measures. Results The weighted prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease was 24.4%, and 3.8%, respectively. For all subjects with obesity (21.8% of the population), screening identified 61.8% of the non-alcoholic fatty liver cases. In a category of all subjects with obesity and overweight subjects with metabolic abnormalities (26.7% of the population), screening identified 71.2% of non-alcoholic fatty liver cases. Conclusions The two groups most likely to benefit by transient elastography screening are adolescents with obesity and overweight adolescents with one metabolic abnormality. These criteria reduce the number of individuals to be tested by approximately 80% (from an approximate 32 million adolescents to 6-7.5 million adolescents), while retaining a diagnostic accuracy of 84%-85%.

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

4.3
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