Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29107943›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2017

Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance elastography and Fibroscan for detecting liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis B patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Huanming Xiao, Meijie Shi, Yubao Xie, Xiaoling Chi

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing 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

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

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

4 authors.

Huanming XiaoHepatology Department, Guangdong provincial hospital of Chinese Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Meijie ShiHepatology Department, Guangdong provincial hospital of Chinese Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Yubao XieHepatology Department, Guangdong provincial hospital of Chinese Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Xiaoling ChiHepatology Department, Guangdong provincial hospital of Chinese Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3193-1943

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThis systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out to compare the diagnostic accuracy of Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) and Fibroscan for detecting liver fibrosis in Chronic Hepatitis B (CHB) patients.

methodsThe PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of science databases were searched for studies that evaluated the diagnostic value of MRE and Fibroscan for liver fibrosis in CHB patients until March 1st 2017. The quality of the included studies was assessed by the revised Quality Assessment for Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy tool (QUADAS-2). Meta-disc 4.1 was used to summary the area under receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC), sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratios to assess the accuracy of staging liver fibrosis using MRE and Fibroscan.

resultsA total of nine MRE studies with 1470 patients and fifteen Fibroscan studies with 3641 patients were included in this systematic review. The summary AUROC values using MRE and Fibroscan for detecting significant fibrosis, advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis were 0.981 vs. 0.796(p<0.001), 0.972 vs. 0.893(p<0.001), and 0.972 vs. 0.905 (p<0.001). The pooled sensitivity and specificity using MRE for the diagnosis of significant fibrosis, advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis were 92.8% and 93.7%, 89.6% and 93.2%, 89.5% and 92.0%, respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity using Fibroscan for the diagnosis of significant fibrosis, advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis were 71.6% and 81.6%, 79.0% and 84.6%, 80.0% and 86.6%, respectively.

conclusionMRE is more accurate than Fibroscan in diagnosing liver fibrosis in CHB patients, especially in diagnosing significant fibrosis and advanced fibrosis.

Indexed as

Elasticity Imaging TechniquesHepatitis B, ChronicHumansLiver CirrhosisSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID29107943
PMCPMC5673175

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.