ArticleThe American journal of the medical sciences2024
Patterns of gastroenterology specialty referral for primary care patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease.
Article in The American journal of the medical sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comorbid Cardiovascular-Liver Disease Disparities: Current Understanding and Future Directions.Current cardiology reports · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAs metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) management extends into primary care, little is known about patterns of specialty referral for affected patients. We determined the proportion of primary care patients with MASLD that received a gastroenterology (GI) consultation and compared advanced fibrosis risk between patients with and without a referral.
methodsThis retrospective study of electronic health record data from a primary care clinic included patients with MASLD, no competing chronic liver disease diagnoses, and no history of cirrhosis. Referral to GI for evaluation and management (E/M) any time after MASLD ascertainment was the outcome. Fibrosis-4 Index (FIB-4) scores were calculated, categorized by advanced fibrosis risk, and compared by receipt of a GI E/M referral. Logistic regression models were developed to determine the association of FIB-4 risk with receipt of a GI referral.
resultsThe cohort included 652 patients of which 12% had FIB-4 scores (≥2.67) at high-risk for advanced fibrosis. Overall, 31% of cohort patients received a GI referral for E/M. There was no difference in the proportion of patients with high (12% vs. 12%, p=0.952) risk FIB-4 scores by receipt of a GI E/M referral. In adjusted logistic regression models, high-risk FIB-4 scores (OR 1.01; 95% CI 0.59 - 1.71) were not associated with receipt of a referral.
conclusionsOnly 30% of patients in this primary care MASLD cohort received a GI E/M referral during the study period, and those patients with a referral did not differ by FIB-4 advanced fibrosis risk.
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.