ReviewNature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology2024
Screening for liver fibrosis: lessons from colorectal and lung cancer screening.
Review in Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Detection of undiagnosed liver cirrhosis via AI-enabled electrocardiogram: a pragmatic, cluster-randomized clinical trial.Nature medicine · 2026Trial
- Steatotic liver disease trajectory: A holistic EASL guidance on the multidisciplinary approach to screening and patient management.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2026Review
- Non-invasive tests for MetALD and alcohol-related liver disease.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2025Review
- Article
- Μetabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: a condition of heterogeneous metabolic risk factors, mechanisms and comorbidities requiring holistic treatment.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2025Review
- Cancer chemoprevention: signaling pathways and strategic approaches.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2025Review
- Preventing the progression of cirrhosis to decompensation and death.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2025Review
- Scutellarin Alleviates CClInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- MetALD: Clinical aspects, pathophysiology and treatment.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2025Review
- Population screening for cirrhosis.Hepatology communications · 2024Review
- Intelligent Liver Function Testing (iLFT): An Intelligent Laboratory Approach to Identifying Chronic Liver Disease.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many countries have incorporated population screening programmes for cancer, such as colorectal and lung cancer, into their health-care systems. Cirrhosis is more prevalent than colorectal cancer and has a comparable age-standardized mortality rate to lung cancer. Despite this fact, there are no screening programmes in place for early detection of liver fibrosis, the precursor of cirrhosis. In this Perspective, we use insights from colorectal and lung cancer screening to explore the benefits, challenges, implementation strategies and pathways for future liver fibrosis screening initiatives. Several non-invasive methods and referral pathways for early identification of liver fibrosis exist, but in addition to accurate detection, screening programmes must also be cost-effective and demonstrate benefit through a reduction in liver-related mortality. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm this. Future randomized screening trials should evaluate not only the screening tests, but also interventions used to halt disease progression in individuals identified through screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38480849What 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.