Cited by 1,965Liver Disease Diagnosis and TreatmentLiver Diseases and ImmunityLiver physiology and pathology

Increased risk of mortality by fibrosis stage in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: Systematic review and meta‐analysis

Open access
Dulai, Parambir S., Singh, Siddharth, Patel, Janki, Soni, Meera, Prokop, Larry J., Younossi, Zobair, Sebastiani, Giada, Ekstedt, Mattias +7 more·2017·Hepatology

Abstract

Liver fibrosis is the most important predictor of mortality in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Quantitative risk of mortality by fibrosis stage has not been systematically evaluated. We aimed to quantify the fibrosis stage–specific risk of all‐cause and liver‐related mortality in NAFLD. Through a systematic review and meta‐analysis, we identified five adult NAFLD cohort studies reporting fibrosis stage–specific mortality (0‐4). Using fibrosis stage 0 as a reference population, fibrosis stage–specific mortality rate ratios (MRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all‐cause and liver‐related mortality were estimated. The study is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses statement. Included were 1,495 NAFLD patients with 17,452 patient years of follow‐up. Compared to NAFLD patients with no fibrosis (stage 0), NAFLD patients with fibrosis were at an increased risk for all‐cause mortality, and this risk increased with increases in the stage of fibrosis: stage 1, MRR = 1.58 (95% CI 1.19‐2.11); stage 2, MRR = 2.52 (95% CI 1.85‐3.42); stage 3, MRR = 3.48 (95% CI 2.51‐4.83); and stage 4, MRR = 6.40 (95% CI 4.11‐9.95). The results were more pronounced as the risk of liver‐related mortality increased exponentially with each increase in the stage of fibrosis: stage 1, MRR = 1.41 (95% CI 0.17‐11.95); stage 2, MRR = 9.57 (95% CI 1.67‐54.93); stage 3, MRR = 16.69 (95% CI 2.92‐95.36); and stage 4, MRR = 42.30 (95% CI 3.51‐510.34). Limitations of the study include an inability to adjust for comorbid conditions or demographics known to impact fibrosis progression in NAFLD and the inclusion of patients with simple steatosis and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis without fibrosis in the reference comparison group. Conclusion: The risk of liver‐related mortality increases exponentially with increase in fibrosis stage; these data have important implications in assessing the utility of each stage and benefits of regression of fibrosis from one stage to another. (H epatology 2017;65:1557‐1565).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hep.29085

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The degree of liver fibrosis is the most robust histological predictor of liver-related morbidity and mortality in MASLD patients.

    “The degree of liver fibrosis remains the most robust histological predictor of liver-related morbidity and mortality in patients with MASLD (Dulai et al. 2017).”

    From The double-edged sword of regulatory T cells in MASLD: from inflammation control to fibrosis promotion (2026) · cites this paper as Dulai et al. 2017

    The Introduction calls fibrosis progression among the most important predictors of disease outcomes in NAFLD, and the Discussion (Main findings) reports that liver-related mortality rises with fibrosis stage. The meta-analysis does not assess liver-related morbidity or directly compare fibrosis with other histological predictors, so it does not establish the full claim that fibrosis is the most robust predictor of both outcomes. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Prognosis in NAFLD is mostly influenced by the grade of fibrosis rather than the presence or absence of NASH.

    “prognosis is mostly influenced by the grade of fibrosis rather than presence/absence of NASH [9, 10].”

    From Current treatment of non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease (2022) · cites this paper as [10]

    The Introduction says fibrosis development and progression are the most important predictors of outcomes in NAFLD, and the Discussion (Main findings) reports increasing mortality with higher fibrosis stage. The paper does not establish the specific comparison with the presence or absence of NASH; its Limitations note that the reference group included both simple steatosis and NASH without fibrosis. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Once NASH and/or advanced fibrosis (fibrosis stage 3 or cirrhosis) and/or portal hypertension is confirmed, patients are at increased risk for liver-related complications (hepatic decompensation and hepatocellular carcinoma) and liver-related mortality.

    “once a diagnosis of NASH and/or advanced fibrosis (i.e. fibrosis stage 3 or cirrhosis) and/or portal hypertension is confirmed patients are at an increased risk for liver‐related complications (i.e. hepatic decompensation and hepatocellular carcinoma) and liver‐related mortality [9, 10, 25].”

    From Current treatment of non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease (2022) · cites this paper as [10]

    The Discussion (Main findings; page not provided) reports substantially higher liver-related mortality at fibrosis stages 3 and 4, supporting that part of the claim. The Discussion (Strengths and limitations; page not provided) says the analysis could not distinguish NASH from simple steatosis or quantify specific causes of liver-related death. It does not establish increased risk from NASH or portal hypertension alone, or assess hepatic decompensation and hepatocellular carcinoma as separate complications. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Progression to NASH involves hepatocyte damage and liver inflammation, and development of liver fibrosis is the key determinant of patient outcomes.

    “The progression to NASH involves hepatocyte damage and liver inflammation, with the development of liver fibrosis being the key determinant of patient outcomes 3-9 .”

    From Amphiregulin from regulatory T cells promotes liver fibrosis and insulin resistance in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (2024) · cites this paper as [6]

    The Introduction (page not provided) calls fibrosis development and progression the most important predictors of outcomes in NAFLD, and the Discussion’s Main findings report increasing mortality with fibrosis stage. The paper does not describe progression to NASH in terms of hepatocyte damage and liver inflammation, so that part of the sentence is not supported by this source. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In patients with MASLD, liver fibrosis represents the primary determinant of mortality.

    “In patients with MASLD, liver fibrosis represents the primary determinant of mortality [258–261].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [19]Sutton AJ Methods for meta-analysis in medical research Chichester; New York J. Wiley 2000

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dulai, P. S., Singh, S., Patel, J., Soni, M., Prokop, L. J., Younossi, Z., Sebastiani, G., Ekstedt, M., Hagstrom, H., Nasr, P., Stal, P., Wong, V. W., Kechagias, S., Hultcrantz, R., & Loomba, R.
Affiliations
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Inova Fairfax Hospital (US)
  • McGill University Health Centre (CA)
  • Linköping University (SE)
  • Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology,Karolinska University Hospital, Karolinska Institutet,Stockholm,Sweden
  • Karolinska University Hospital (SE)
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
Corresponding author
Loomba, Rohit
Venue
Hepatology
Published
2017-03-31
Volume
65
Issue
5
Pages
1557-1565
ISSN
  • 0270-9139 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-3350
OpenAlex
W2580009538
Cited by
1,965
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 199 · 2025: 193 · 2024: 227 · 2023: 263 · 2022: 240 · 2021: 272 · 2020: 249 · 2019: 163 · 2018: 101 · 2017: 48 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
20.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Hepatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb
  • Gilead Sciences
  • American Gastroenterological Association (R01‐DK106419, K23DK090303, 5T32DK007202)
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (DK090303, R01DK106419, T32DK007202, K23DK090303)
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (P42ES010337)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Liver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hepatology › Liver Diseases and Immunity
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hepatology › Liver physiology and pathology
Keywords
non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, liver fibrosis, fibrosis stage, mortality risk, all-cause mortality, liver-related mortality, NAFLD progression, simple steatosis, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, comorbidities, mortality prediction model, liver cancer, liver cirrhosis
MeSH terms
Fibrosis, Humans, Liver, Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review