Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20221762›Full record

ReviewDer Pathologe2010

[Histopathological diagnosis of non-alcoholic and alcoholic fatty liver disease. Grade 2 consensus-based guidelines].

A Tannapfel, H Denk, H P Dienes, C Langner, P Schirmacher, M Trauner, B Flott-Rahmel

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Pathologe, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

A TannapfelInstitut für Pathologie, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bürkle-de-la-Camp Platz 1, 44789 Bochum. andrea.tannapfel@rub.de
H Denk
H P Dienes
C Langner
P Schirmacher
M Trauner
B Flott-Rahmel
Medical University of Graz · ATRuhr University Bochum · DEHeidelberg University · DEUniversity of Cologne · DE

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF P 18613
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Both alcoholic (AFL) and non-alcoholic fatty liver (NAFL) are characterized by lipid deposition in hepatocytes. The diagnosis of steatosis is made when lipid deposition exceeds 5% of hepatocytes, while involvement of more than 50% is called "fatty liver ". An additional inflammatory reaction leads to alcoholic (ASH) or non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). Steatohepatitis is present when both inflammatory infiltrates of mixed cells in the small liver lobules as well as liver cell injury in terms of ballooning can be detected.Liver biopsy represents the "gold standard" for confirming diagnosis and determining inflammatory activity and potential fibrosis of fatty liver disease.The differential diagnosis of ASH-NASH cannot be made on the basis of histological criteria alone. Steatosis, inflammatory changes and hepatocytic injury can be semiquantified as a "Brunt Score" or "NAS" (NAFLD activity score), providing the basis on which to decide whether or not steatohepatitis is present.People at increased risk of developing a fatty liver possess an increased risk of developing chemotherapy-associated steatohepatitis (CASH).Histologically, pediatric NASH differs from adult NASH and is often only clinically manifest through a mild if persistent elevation in transaminases.

Indexed as

BiopsyConsensusDiagnosis, DifferentialFatty LiverFatty Liver, AlcoholicHepatocytesHumans

Identifiers

PMID20221762
OpenAlexW1561565483

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.