ArticleMedicine2020
Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of 3 diagnostic criteria combined with refined pathological scoring system for drug-induced liver injury.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing Liver Function in Rat Models of Acute Liver Failure Using Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography and Cytokine Levels.PloS one · 2025Article
- Role of Hepatocyte Transporters in Drug-Induced Liver Injury (DILI)-In Vitro Testing.Pharmaceutics · 2022Review
- Challenges and Future of Drug-Induced Liver Injury Research-Laboratory Tests.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Herbal and dietary supplement induced liver injury: Highlights from the recent literature.World journal of hepatology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is difficult in diagnose, criteria used now are mostly based on history review. We tried to evaluate the value of these criteria and histopathology features in DILI to perform a method diagnosing DILI more definitely.We enrolled 458 consecutive hospitalized DILI patients from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2018, using Roussel-Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM), Maria & Victorino scale (M&V), and Digestive Disease Week-Japan criterion (DDW-J) combined with refined pathological scoring system respectively to perform the evaluation.A total of 458 DILI patients were enrolled, the area under receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) of the 3 clinical diagnostic criteria were 0.730 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.667-0.793), 0.793 (95% CI: 0.740-0.847), and 0.764 (95% CI: 0.702-0.826) respectively. Three hundred two DILI patients' liver biopsies were included: steatosis in 204 cases (67.5%), cholestasis in 151 cases (50%), cell apoptosis in 139 cases (46%), eosinophil granulocyte infiltration in 131 cases (43.4%), central and/or portal phlebitis in 103 cases (34.1%), iron deposition in 90 cases (29.8%), and pigmented macrophages in 92 cases (30.5%). The AUROC of refined pathological scale combined with 3 criteria were 0.843 (95% CI: 0.747-0.914), 0.907 (95% CI: 0.822-0.960), and 0.881 (95% CI: 0.790-0.942) respectively. In hepatocellular type, the AUROCs were 0.894 (95% CI: 0.787-0.959), 0.960 (95% CI: 0.857-0.994), and 0.940 (95% CI: 0.847-0.985); in cholestatic type, the AUROCs were 0.750 (95% CI: 0.466-0.931), 0.500 (95% CI: 0.239-0.761), and 0.500 (95% CI: 0.239-0.761); in mixed type, the AUROCs were 0.786 (95% CI: 0.524-0.943), 0.869 (95% CI: 0.619-0.981), and 0.762 (95% CI: 0.498 to -0.930).Combined with pathological scale can significantly improve the accuracy of clinical diagnostic criteria, no matter in alone or combined condition, M&V might be more accurate in diagnosing DILI from suspected patients.
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.