Trial reportClinical and translational gastroenterology2019
Liver Stiffness Measurement With FibroScan: Use the Right Probe in the Right Conditions!
Trial report in Clinical and translational gastroenterology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
27 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exposure-response modeling of liver fat imaging endpoints in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease populations administered ervogastat alone and co-administered with clesacostat.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2025Trial
- Derivation and internal validation of the enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF)-based prediction score for advanced liver fibrosis in obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- MMP-9 and non-invasive markers in evaluating MASLD and atherosclerosis.Journal, genetic engineering & biotechnology · 2026Article
- Characteristics of Transient Elastography for Hepatic Steatosis and Fibrosis in Children Undergoing Liver Biopsy.The Journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Non-invasive imaging diagnostic techniques in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: a roadmap for clinicians.Hormones (Athens, Greece) · 2026Review
- New Treatment Options for MASLD Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Diagnostic accuracy of the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index for advanced liver fibrosis in Qatari patients with MASLD: Comparison with liver biopsy and FibroScan.Qatar medical journal · 2026Article
- Transient Elastography and Fibroscan: Stethoscope of a Hepatologist in Today's World.Current hepatology reports · 2025Article
- Comparison between vibration-controlled transient elastography and point shear wave elastography for assessment of hepatic fibrosis based on magnetic resonance elastography.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2025Article
- Liver stiffness measurements in patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: Updates on the method effectiveness and perspectives.World journal of hepatology · 2025Review
- Evaluating Pediatric NAFLD with Controlled Attenuation Parameter: A Comprehensive Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Effects of hepatic fibrosis on the quantification of hepatic steatosis using the controlled attenuation parameter in patients with chronic hepatitis B.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2025Article
- Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency and Pi*Z allele as important co-factors in the development of liver fibrosis.World journal of hepatology · 2024Article
- Two sides of the same coin: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and atherosclerosis.Vascular pharmacology · 2024Review
- Focused Shear Wave Beam Propagation in Tissue-Mimicking Phantoms.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2024Article
- Sex- and reproductive status-specific relationships between body composition and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.BMC gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Liver Stiffness Is Associated with the Burden of Carotid and Systemic Atherosclerosis in an Unorganized Cohort of Patients 40-64 Years Old.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Vitamin D Status and Steatohepatitis in Obese Diabetic and Non-Diabetic Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Liver fibrosis assessment: MR and US elastography.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2022Review
- Accuracy of controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) and liver stiffness measurement (LSM) for assessing steatosis and fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFibroScan's M and XL probes give significantly different results, which could lead to misevaluation of liver fibrosis if the correct probe is not chosen. According to the manufacturer, the M probe should be used when the skin-liver capsule distance (SCD) is <25 mm, and the XL probe should be used when SCD is ≥25 mm. We aimed at validating this recommendation and defining the conditions of use for FibroScan probes in clinical practice.
methodsFour hundred thirty-nine patients with biopsy-proven chronic liver disease were included. Of them, 382 had successful examinations with both M and XL probes. Advanced fibrosis was defined as Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis Clinical Research Network (NASH CRN) F ≥3 or Metavir F ≥2.
resultsIn a same patient, XL probe results were significantly lower than M probe results: 7.9 (5.6-11.7) vs 9.5 (6.7-14.6) kPa, respectively (P < 0.001). After matching for age, sex, liver fibrosis, and serum transaminases, M probe results in patients with SCD <25 mm and XL probe results in those with SCD ≥25 mm did not significantly differ: 8.8 (6.0-12.0) vs 9.1 (6.7-12.8) kPa, respectively (P = 0.175). Of note, 81.4% of patients with body mass index (BMI) <32 kg/m had SCD <25 mm, and 77.7% of patients with BMI ≥32 kg/m had SCD ≥25 mm. A practical algorithm using BMI first and then the FibroScan Automatic Probe Selection tool was proposed to help physicians accurately choose which probe to use in clinical practice.
conclusionsThere is no significant difference in results between M and XL probes when they are used in the right conditions. In clinical practice, the probe should be selected according to the BMI and the Automatic Probe Selection tool.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.