ArticleInternal medicine (Tokyo, Japan)2021
The Diagnosis of Drug-induced Liver Injury: Current Diagnostic Ability and Future Challenges of the Digestive Disease Week-Japan 2004 Scale 15 Years after Its Proposal.
Article in Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acetaminophen-induced liver injury at therapeutic doses in a young adult: a case report.Clinical journal of gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Critical Review of Gaps in the Diagnosis and Management of Drug-Induced Liver Injury Associated with Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective This study examined whether or not the Digestive Disease Week-Japan (DDW-J) 2004 scale proposed over 15 years ago can be applied to current cases of drug-induced liver injury (DILI). Methods The new patients group included 125 patients from 2012 to 2019 and was divided into 2 subgroups: 96 patients in the new DILI group and 29 patients in the new non-DILI group. Similarly, the old patients group included 105 patients from 1997 to 2002 and was divided into 2 subgroups: 59 patients in the old DILI group and 46 patients in the old non-DILI group. Patients were assessed by the DDW-J 2004 scale; those with a score ≥3 were defined as having DILI. Results The total score of the new DILI group was significantly lower than that of the old DILI group [6 (1-11) vs. 6 (3-9), p=0.004]. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (NPV) were 94.8%, 65.6%, 90.1%, and 79.2%, respectively, in the new patients group and 100%, 91.4%, 93.7%, and 100%, respectively, in the old patients group. The specificity and NPV of the new patients group were significantly lower than those of the old patients group. Conclusion The DDW-J 2004 scale maintains a stable diagnostic ability for DILI, regardless of differences in eras and verification methods. However, differential diagnoses can affect the scoring, and new types of DILI, such as immune-related adverse events, must be addressed. Therefore, upgrading the scale should be considered.
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.