ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences
Are we missing varices by implementing Baveno-VI recommendation of not screening patients with Compensated Advanced Chronic Liver Disease?
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences. 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.
- Reassessing the Baveno based strategy in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis of screening for high-risk varices in cirrhosis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Validation and exploratory factor analysis of Urdu Version of Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
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
objectivesThis study aimed to validate Baveno-VI recommendations for variceal screening in cACLD in our region and proposed our own cutoff values.
methodsProspective cross-sectional study was conducted on cACLD patients from August 2020 till April 2021. Patients segregated into Group-A, having Liver stiffness measurement (LSM) of ≥ 20 kPa and platelet of ≤ 150 × 10
resultsA total of 134 patients of cACLD were included. Group-A had 72 (53.7%) patients and Group-B had 62 (46.3%) patients. Group-A had 6 (8.3%) NV; 18 (25.0%) VNNT and 48 (66.7%) VNT. Group-B had 26 (41.9%) NV, 24 (38.7%) VNNT and 12 (19.4%) VNT. The sensitivity of 66.7%, specificity of 80.6% and NPV of 67.56% was obtained. Thus 19.4% VNT were missed on following Baveno VI recommendations. ROC in our study suggested cutoff value of 11.5 kPa with sensitivity of 100% and 1-sepcifity pf 78% (AUROC = 0.865;
conclusionsSubstantial number of VNT in cACLD patients are missed by following Baveno-VI recommendations and these needs to be revised on regional basis.
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.