CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 68

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Assessment of 287 Japanese cases of drug induced liver injury by the diagnostic scale of the International Consensus Meeting

Takikawa, H·2003·Hepatology Research
DOI 10.1016/s1386-6346(03)00232-8
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Two hundred and eighty seven Japanese cases of drug induced liver injury were assessed by the diagnostic scale of the International Consensus Meeting (ICM). They were classified to the hepatocellular (55%), mixed (24%) and cholestatic (22%) type according to the type of liver injury. Five cases were diagnosed as 'unrelated', since the reaction occurred more than 15 days after stopping the drug. The remaining 282 cases were classified to 69 cases of 'highly probable', 170 cases of 'probable', 39 cases of 'possible', and four cases of 'unlikely'. The cases with positive drug-lymphocyte stimulation test (DLST) and with eosinophilia distributed to higher scores. Although the diagnostic scale of the ICM was found to be also useful for Japanese cases, the modification of the scale including the data of DLST and eosinophilia together with some other modifications were recommended in the view of the present status of Japan. Using the modified diagnostic scale, the 287 cases were classified to 173 cases of 'highly probable', 102 cases of "probable', 11 cases of 'possible', and one case of 'unlikely'. Although the modified diagnostic scale seems better than the original one, further assessment of the modified scale using many Japanese cases is needed for the further improvement of the scale.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1386-6346(03)00232-8

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 Digestive Disease Week-Japan 2004 score (DDW-J) is a modification of RUCAM that includes drug-lymphocyte stimulation test (DLST) results and peripheral eosinophilia.

    “The Digestive Disease Week-Japan 2004 score (DDW-J) is a modification of the RUCAM with the inclusion of drug-lymphocyte stimulation test (DLST) results and peripheral eosinophilia.”

    From Drug-induced liver injury. Part I: Classification, diagnosis and treatment (2025) · cites this paper as [37]

  • The DDW-J is not currently used outside of Japan because of the lack of widely available and reproducible DLST assays.

    “it is not currently used outside of Japan because of the lack of widely available and reproducible DLST assays [37, 38].”

    From Drug-induced liver injury. Part I: Classification, diagnosis and treatment (2025) · cites this paper as [37]

  • The DDW-J was shown to be superior to the original RUCAM in Japanese patients.

    “Although the DDW-J was shown to be superior to the original RUCAM in Japanese patients”

    From Drug-induced liver injury. Part I: Classification, diagnosis and treatment (2025) · cites this paper as [37]

  • The DDW-J score ranges from −5 to +17 points.

    “Scores range from −5 to +17 points.”

    From Drug-induced liver injury. Part I: Classification, diagnosis and treatment (2025) · cites this paper as [37]

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Takikawa, H.
Venue
Hepatology Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-11
Volume
27
Issue
3
Pages
192-195
ISSN
1386-6346
DOI
10.1016/s1386-6346(03)00232-8
Cited by
68
References
0
Language
en
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

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