Cited by 895Liver Disease Diagnosis and TreatmentLiver Disease and TransplantationUltrasound Imaging and Elastography

Comparison of laboratory tests, ultrasound, or magnetic resonance elastography to detect fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a meta-analysis

Open access
Xiao, Guangqin, Zhu, Sixian, Xiao, Xiao, Yan, Lunan, Yang, Jiayin, Wu, Gang·2017·Hepatology

Abstract

Many noninvasive methods for diagnosing liver fibrosis (LF) have been proposed. To determine the best method for diagnosing LF in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), we conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis to compare the performance of aspartate aminotransferase to platelets ratio index (APRI), fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4), BARD score, NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS), FibroScan, shear wave elastography (SWE), and magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) for diagnosing LF in NAFLD. We compared the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of these noninvasive methods for detecting significant fibrosis (SF), advanced fibrosis (AF), and cirrhosis. Heterogeneity was explored using meta-regression. Sixty-four articles with a total of 13,046 NAFLD subjects were included. The overall mean prevalence of SF, AF, and cirrhosis was 45.0%, 24.0%, and 9.4% in NAFLD patients, respectively. With an APRI threshold of 1.0 and 1.5, the sensitivities and specificities were 50.0% and 84.0% and 18.3% and 96.1%, respectively, for AF. With a FIB-4 threshold of 2.67 and 3.25, the sensitivities and specificities were 26.6% and 96.5% and 31.8% and 96.0%, respectively, for AF. The summary sensitivities and specificities of BARD score (threshold of 2), NFS (threshold of -1.455), FibroScan M (threshold of 8.7-9), SWE, and MRE for detecting AF were 0.76 and 0.61, 0.72 and 0.70, 0.87 and 0.79, 0.90 and 0.93, and 0.84 and 0.90, respectively. The summary AUROC values using APRI, FIB-4, BARD score, NFS, FibroScan M probe, XL probe, SWE, and MRE for diagnosing AF were 0.77, 0.84, 0.76, 0.84, 0.88, 0.85, 0.95, and 0.96, respectively. CONCLUSION: MRE and SWE may have the highest diagnostic accuracy for staging fibrosis in NAFLD patients. Among the four noninvasive simple indexes, NFS and FIB-4 probably offer the best diagnostic performance for detecting AF. (Hepatology 2017;66:1486-1501).

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.29302

Cites

32 of 32 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?

  • Several substantial comparative studies have shown that MRE provides at least equal quality in fibrosis staging as ultrasound-based elastography techniques.

    “Several substantial comparative studies have shown that MRE provides at least equal quality in fi brosis staging as ultrasound-based elastography techniques.”

    From EASL-EASD-EASO Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). (2024) · cites this paper as [158]

    The Discussion reports that MRE outperformed FibroScan on some fibrosis measures and that MRE and shear-wave elastography had similarly high accuracy for advanced fibrosis. It also cautions that the MRE and shear-wave evidence comprised no more than five articles per method, with relatively few participants, so the characterization of the comparative studies as substantial is not supported. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Xiao, G., Zhu, S., Xiao, X., Yan, L., Yang, J., & Wu, G.
Affiliations
  • Huazhong University of Science and Technology (CN)
  • Tongji Hospital (CN)
  • Henan Medical University (CN)
  • Department of Liver Surgery,West China Hospital of Sichuan University,Chengdu,China
  • West China Hospital of Sichuan University (CN)
Corresponding author
Wu, Gang
Venue
Hepatology
Published
2017-09-26
Volume
66
Issue
5
Pages
1486-1501
ISSN
  • 0270-9139 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-3350
OpenAlex
W2622132351
Cited by
895
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 68 · 2025: 85 · 2024: 109 · 2023: 118 · 2022: 142 · 2021: 147 · 2020: 117 · 2019: 62 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 7
FWCI
47.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Hepatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (81600482, 81472201, 81172150)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Liver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hepatology › Liver Disease and Transplantation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Ultrasound Imaging and Elastography
Keywords
non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, liver fibrosis, noninvasive fibrosis assessment, APRI, FIB-4, NAFLD fibrosis score, BARD score, FibroScan, shear wave elastography, magnetic resonance elastography, liver cirrhosis, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, ultrasound elastography, liver stiffness, meta-regression
MeSH terms
China, Fibrosis, Humans, Liver, Liver Cirrhosis, Ultrasonography, Prevalence, Elasticity Imaging Techniques, 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