4.7 Article

Serial combination of non-invasive tools improves the diagnostic accuracy of severe liver fibrosis in patients with NAFLD

期刊

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 46, 期 6, 页码 617-627

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apt.14219

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The accuracy of available non-invasive tools for staging severe fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is still limited. Aim: To assess the diagnostic performance of paired or serial combination of non-invasive tools in NAFLD patients. Methods: We analysed data from 741 patients with a histological diagnosis of NAFLD. The GGT/PLT, APRI, AST/ALT, BARD, FIB-4, and NAFLD Fibrosis Score (NFS) scores were calculated according to published algorithms. Liver stiffness measurement (LSM) was performed by FibroScan. Results: LSM, NFS and FIB-4 were the best non-invasive tools for staging F3-F4 fibrosis (AUC 0.863, 0.774, and 0.792, respectively), with LSM having the highest sensitivity (90%), and the highest NPV (94%), and NFS and FIB-4 the highest specificity (97% and 93%, respectively), and the highest PPV (73% and 79%, respectively). The paired combination of LSM or NFS with FIB-4 strongly reduced the likelihood of wrongly classified patients (ranging from 2.7% to 2.6%), at the price of a high uncertainty area (ranging from 54.1% to 58.2%), and of a low overall accuracy (ranging from 43% to 39.1%). The serial combination with the second test used in patients in the grey area of the first test and in those with high LSM values (> 9.6 KPa) or low NFS or FIB-4 values (< -1.455 and < 1.30, respectively) overall increased the diagnostic performance generating an accuracy ranging from 69.8% to 70.1%, an uncertainty area ranging from 18.9% to 20.4% and a rate of wrong classification ranging from 9.2% to 11.3%. Conclusion: The serial combination of LSM with FIB-4/NFS has a good diagnostic accuracy for the non-invasive diagnosis of severe fibrosis in NAFLD.

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

4.7
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