ArticleUnited European gastroenterology journal2022
Comparison of various strategies to define the optimal target population for liver fibrosis screening: A population-based cohort study.
Article in United European gastroenterology journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Considerations and clinical utility of referral pathways for early detection of liver disease in at-risk populations.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Prediction of major liver-related events in the population using prognostic models.Gastroenterology report · 2025Review
- Population screening for cirrhosis.Hepatology communications · 2024Review
- CLivD score modifies FIB-4 performance in liver fibrosis detection in the US general population.eGastroenterology · 2023Article
- Comparison of various strategies to define the optimal target population for liver fibrosis screening: A population-based cohort study.United European gastroenterology journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
aimsLiver fibrosis screening is recommended in high-risk populations, but the optimal definition of "high risk" remains to be established. We compared the performance of several risk-stratification strategies in a population-based setting.
methodsData were obtained from the Finnish population-based health examination surveys Health 2000 and FINRISK 2002-2012. The Chronic Liver Disease Risk Score (CLivD) was compared to previously published risk-stratification strategies based on elevated liver enzymes, alcohol use, diabetes, fatty liver index, body mass index, and/or metabolic risk factors for their ability to detect either advanced liver fibrosis or incident severe liver events. Advanced fibrosis was defined as an Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF
resultsDepending on the cohort, 53%-60% of the population was considered at risk using the CLivD strategy (low-intermediate-high risk, excluding the minimal-risk category), compared to 30%-32% according to the other risk-stratification strategies. The CLivD captured 85%-91% of cases in the population with advanced liver fibrosis and 90% of incident severe liver events within 10 years from baseline. This compares to 33%-44% and 56%-67% captured by the other risk-stratification strategies, respectively. The 10-year cumulative incidence of liver events varied by risk-stratification strategy (1.0%-1.4%).
conclusionsCompared to previously reported traditional risk factor-based strategies, use of the CLivD captured substantially more cases with advanced liver disease in the population and may be superior for targeting further fibrosis screening.
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.