Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33776492›Full record

ReviewHepatic medicine : evidence and research2021

Approaches to the Diagnosis of Portal Hypertension: Non-Invasive or Invasive Tests?

Elton Dajti, Luigina Vanessa Alemanni, Giovanni Marasco, Marco Montagnani, Francesco Azzaroli

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Hepatic medicine : evidence and research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Elton DajtiIRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Luigina Vanessa AlemanniIRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Giovanni MarascoIRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Marco MontagnaniIRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Francesco AzzaroliIRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
University of Bologna · ITAzienda USL di Bologna · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Portal hypertension is the main driver of complications in patients with advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD) and is defined by values of hepatic venous pressure gradient measurement (HVPG) >5 mmHg. Values of HVPG ≥10 mmHg determine the presence of clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH), the main predictor of the risk of variceal bleeding, hepatic decompensation, and mortality. However, its measurement is invasive and requires high expertise, so its routine use outside third level centers or clinical trials is limited. In the last decades, several non-invasive tests (NITs) have been developed and validated for the diagnosis of portal hypertension. Among these, liver (LSM) and spleen stiffness measurement (SSM) are the most promising tools available, as they have been proven accurate to predict CSPH, high-risk esophageal varices, decompensation, and mortality in patients with ACLD. In the last Baveno VI Consensus proceedings, LSM evaluation was recommended for the first time for diagnosis of CSPH (LSM >20-25 kPa) and the screening of patients with a low probability of having high-risk varices (LSM <20 kPa and platelet count >150.000/mm

Indexed as

hepatic venous pressure gradientliver cirrhosisliver stiffnessportal hypertensionspleen stiffness

Identifiers

PMID33776492
PMCPMC7987277
OpenAlexW3136295793

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.