SynthesisBMJ open2019
von Willebrand factor as a biomarker of clinically significant portal hypertension and severe portal hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Novel advances following the integration of Baveno VII consensus definitions for the non-invasive testing of portal hypertension].Zhonghua gan zang bing za zhi = Zhonghua ganzangbing zazhi = Chinese journal of hepatology · 2026Review
- Exploring the Effects of Teas with Different Fermentation Levels and Black Coffee on the Body via the Urine Proteome.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Vasomics of the liver.Gut · 2025Review
- Non-Invasive versus Invasive Assessment of Portal Hypertension in Chronic Liver Disease.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2024Review
- Endothelial Dysfunction and Liver Cirrhosis: Unraveling of a Complex Relationship.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Metabolomics reveals altered metabolites in cirrhotic patients with severe portal hypertension in Tibetan population.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Von Willebrand factor processing in patients with advanced chronic liver disease and its relation to portal hypertension and clinical outcome.Hepatology international · 2023Article
- Transient elastography and von Willebrand factor as predictors of portal hypertension and decompensation in children.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2023Article
- Microvascular Thrombosis and Liver Fibrosis Progression: Mechanisms and Clinical Applications.Cells · 2023Review
- Effect of far-infrared radiation therapy on von Willebrand factor in patients with chronic kidney disease.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- [The clinical value of von Willebrand factor and VITRO score in evaluating disease progression in patients with HBV infection].Zhonghua gan zang bing za zhi = Zhonghua ganzangbing zazhi = Chinese journal of hepatology · 2022Article
- Bibliometric-analysis visualization and review of non-invasive methods for monitoring and managing the portal hypertension.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Review
- Von Willebrand Factor, Factor VIII, and Other Acute Phase Reactants as Biomarkers of Inflammation and Endothelial Dysfunction in Chronic Graft-Versus-Host Disease.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Review
- Von Willebrand Factor as a Biomarker for Liver Disease - An Update.Journal of clinical and experimental hepatologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis meta-analysis was performed to investigate the correlation between von Willebrand factor (vWF) antigen and hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) and to evaluate the diagnostic performance of vWF to detect clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) and severe portal hypertension (SPH).
designSystematic review and meta-analysis.
methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were screened up to 5 April 2018. Studies related to the diagnostic performance of vWF to detect CSPH and/or SPH with HVPG as the reference standard were included. Study quality was assessed by using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies scale. Two authors independently used a standardised form to extract data. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was the correlation coefficient between vWF and HVPG. The secondary outcome was the diagnostic performance of vWF to detect CSPH or SPH.
resultsA total of six articles involving 994 patients were included in this study. Five of the included articles were used to stratify the results for the correlation coefficient, three for the diagnostic performance of CSPH and two for SPH. The pooled correlation coefficient based on the random effects model was 0.54 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.69), thus suggesting a moderate correlation between vWF and HVPG. The pooled sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve of vWF for CSPH detection were 82% (95% CI 78 to 86), 76% (95% CI 68 to 83) and 0.87 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.94), respectively. Regarding the ability of vWF to detect SPH, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 86% (95% CI 80 to 90) and 75% (95% CI 66 to 83), respectively. These results supported the satisfactory diagnostic performance of vWF for CSPH and SPH detection.
conclusionsvWF, as a novel biomarker, has a moderate correlation with HVPG and shows a satisfactory performance for the diagnosis of CSPH and SPH in patients with cirrhosis.
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.