Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,093

The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sampling error and intraobserver variation in liver biopsy in patients with chronic HCV infection

Arie Regev, Mariana E. Berho, Lennox J. Jeffers, Clara Milikowski, Enrique G. Molina, Nikolaos Pyrsopoulos, Zheng-Zhou Feng, K. Rajender Reddy, Eugene R. Schiff·2002·The American Journal of Gastroenterology
DOI 10.1016/s0002-9270(02)04396-4
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Needle liver biopsy has been shown to have a high rate of sampling error in patients with diffuse parenchymal liver diseases. In these cases, the sample of liver tissue does not reflect the true degree of inflammation, fibrosis, or cirrhosis, despite an adequate sample size. The aim of this study was to determine the rate and extent of sampling error in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection, and to assess the intraobserver variation with the commonly used scoring system proposed by Scheuer and modified by Batts and Ludwig. METHODS: A total of 124 patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection underwent simultaneous laparoscopy-guided biopsies of the right and left hepatic lobes. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded sections were stained with hematoxylin and eosin and with trichrome. The slides were blindly coded and randomly divided among two hepatopathologists. Inflammation and fibrosis were scored according to the standard grading (inflammation) and staging (fibrosis) method based on the modified Scheuer system. Following the interpretation, the slides were uncoded to compare the results of the right and left lobes. Fifty of the samples were blindly resubmitted to each of the pathologists to determine the intraobserver variation. RESULTS: Thirty of 124 patients (24.2%) had a difference of at least one grade, and 41 of 124 patients (33.1%) had a difference of at least one stage between the right and left lobes. In 18 patients (14.5%), interpretation of cirrhosis was given in one lobe, whereas stage 3 fibrosis was given in the other. A difference of two stages or two grades was found in only three (2.4%) and two (1.6%) patients, respectively. Of the 50 samples that were examined twice, the grading by each pathologist on the second examination differed from the first examination in 0% and 4%, and the staging differed in 6% and 10%, respectively. All observed variations were of one grade or one stage. CONCLUSIONS: Liver biopsy samples taken from the right and left hepatic lobes differed in histological grading and staging in a large proportion of chronic hepatitis C virus patients; however, differences of more than one stage or grade were uncommon. A sampling error may have led to underdiagnosis of cirrhosis in 14.5% of the patients. These differences could not be attributed to intraobserver variation, which appeared to be low.

Overview

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

OpenAlex · 10.1016/s0002-9270(02)04396-4

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Regev, A., Berho, M. E., Jeffers, L. J., Milikowski, C., Molina, E. G., Pyrsopoulos, N., Feng, Z.-Z., Reddy, K. R., & Schiff, E. R.
Venue
The American Journal of Gastroenterology
Publisher
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Published
2002-10-01
Volume
97
Issue
10
Pages
2614-2618
ISSN
0002-9270 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s0002-9270(02)04396-4
OpenAlex
W2002163127
Cited by
2,093
References
1
FWCI
21.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.