Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27300569›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2016

Diagnostic Accuracy of 2D-Shear Wave Elastography for Liver Fibrosis Severity: A Meta-Analysis.

Tian'an Jiang, Guo Tian, Qiyu Zhao, Dexing Kong, Chao Cheng, Liyun Zhong, Lanjuan Li

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Tian'an JiangDepartment of Ultrasonography, First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310003, China.
Guo TianState Key Laboratory for Diagnosis and Treatment of Infectious Diseases, Collaborative Innovation Center for Diagnosis and Treatment of Infectious Diseases, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310003, China.
Qiyu ZhaoDepartment of Hepatobiliary Pancreatic Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310003, China.
Dexing KongDepartment of Mathematics, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, China.
Chao ChengDepartment of Hepatobiliary Pancreatic Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310003, China.
Liyun ZhongDepartment of Ultrasonography, First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310003, China.
Lanjuan LiState Key Laboratory for Diagnosis and Treatment of Infectious Diseases, Collaborative Innovation Center for Diagnosis and Treatment of Infectious Diseases, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310003, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the accuracy of shear wave elastography (SWE) in the quantitative diagnosis of liver fibrosis severity.

methodsThe published literatures were systematically retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Web of science and Scopus up to May 13th, 2016. Included studies reported the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, as well as the diagnostic odds ratio of SWE in populations with liver fibrosis. A bivariate mixed-effects regression model was used, which was estimated by the I2 statistics. The quality of articles was evaluated by quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS).

resultsThirteen articles including 2303 patients were qualified for the study. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of SWE for the diagnosis of liver fibrosis are as follows: ≥F1 0.76 (p<0.001, 95% CI, 0.71-0.81, I2 = 75.33%), 0.92 (p<0.001, 95% CI, 0.80-0.97, I2 = 79.36%); ≥F2 0.84 (p = 0.35, 95% CI, 0.81-0.86, I2 = 9.55%), 0.83 (p<0.001, 95% CI, 0.77-0.88, I2 = 86.56%); ≥F3 0.89 (p = 0.56, 95% CI, 0.86-0.92, I2 = 0%), 0.86 (p<0.001, 95% CI, 0.82-0.90, I2 = 75.73%); F4 0.89 (p = 0.24, 95% CI, 0.84-0.92, I2 = 20.56%), 0.88 (p<0.001, 95% CI, 0.84-0.92, I2 = 82.75%), respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed no significant changes if any one of the studies was excluded. Publication bias was not detected in this meta-analysis.

conclusionsOur study suggests that SWE is a helpful method to appraise liver fibrosis severity. Future studies that validate these findings would be appropriate.

Indexed as

Area Under CurveElasticity Imaging TechniquesHumansLiverLiver CirrhosisROC CurveSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID27300569
PMCPMC4907490

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.