ArticleBMJ open2022
Liver blood marker testing in UK primary care: a UK wide cohort study, 2004-2016.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Epidemiology, temporal trends, and fibrosis risk stratification in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease in UK primary care: a population-based cohort and nested case-control study.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Article
- Functional liver imaging score derived from hepatobiliary-specific contrast-enhanced MRI: a study on agreement and correlation.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Interpreting elevated liver blood test results through a genetic lens: A genome-wide association study.Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver · 2024Article
- An Isobaric Labeling Approach to Enhance Detection and Quantification of Tissue-Derived Plasma Proteins as Potential Early Disease Biomarkers.Biomolecules · 2023Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe aimed to determine (1) the temporal trends of liver enzyme testing in UK general practice and (2) how these vary among different subgroups at risk of chronic liver disease (CLD).
designRetrospective cohort study.
settingUK primary care database (Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD)), 2004-2016.
participantsPatients aged 18 years or over, registered in the CPRD from 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2016. OUTCOME MEASURES: The frequency of testing recorded within the study period in general practice was calculated for: alanine aminotransferase (ALT); aspartate aminotransferase (AST); gamma glutamyl transferase (GGT); alkaline phosphatase (ALP); bilirubin and platelets. Analyses were conducted in subgroups of patients at high risk of developing liver disease.
resultsThe study cohort included 2 912 066 individuals with median follow-up of 3.2 years. The proportion of patients with at least one measurement for ALT, ALP, bilirubin or platelet test gradually increased over the course of the study period and fell for AST and GGT. By 2016, the proportion of the population receiving one of more tests in that year was: platelet count 28.0%, ALP 26.2%, bilirubin 25.6%, ALT 23.7%, GGT 5.1% and AST 2.2%. Those patients with risk factors for CLD had higher proportions receiving liver marker assessments than those without risk factors.
conclusionsThe striking finding that AST is now only measured in a fraction of the population has significant implications for routine guidance which frequently expects it. A more nuanced approach where non-invasive markers are targeted towards individuals with risk factors for CLD may be a solution.
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.