ArticleHepatology international2025
Risk stratification for patients with primary biliary cholangitis: early versus advanced-stage or non-cirrhosis versus cirrhosis?
Article in Hepatology international, 2025. 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.
- Clinical outcomes and early- prognostic biomarkers of primary biliary cholangitis with ductopenia.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Consensus statements of the Hellenic Autoimmune Liver Diseases Study Group on the diagnosis and current management of primary biliary cholangitis.Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
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
backgroundPrimary biliary cholangitis (PBC) is divided into early and advanced stages, which are two distinct disease states, and whether this division is optimal remains to be demonstrated.
aimsA risk stratification strategy was re-established according to histological stages and response criteria were defined accordingly.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 721 patients with histological data. The endpoint events were liver-related death and liver transplantation (LT).
resultsHistological stage IV was associated with LT-free survival compared to stage III (HR: 2.764, 95% CI: 1.457-5.247, p = 0.002); and stage III was not associated with LT-free survival compared to stage II (HR: 1.632, 95% CI: 0.833-3.195, p = 0.153). Total bilirubin was associated with LT-free survival (HR: 1.162, 95% CI: 1.079-1.251, p < 0.001), whereas alkaline phosphatase was not associated with LT-free survival in cirrhotic patients (HR: 1.256, 95% CI: 0.958-1.648, p = 0.100). Compared to Paris I, Paris II, and Toronto, Rotterdam had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for predicting the 5-year endpoint events in cirrhotic patients (0.652 [0.558-0.745]). Patients who had poor response according to Rotterdam criteria had worse prognosis than those who were biochemical responders (p = 0.036). Compared to Paris II and Paris I (for stage III) + Paris II (for stage I-II), Paris I, Rotterdam, and Toronto had higher AUC in non-cirrhotic patients (p < 0.05).
conclusionsRisk stratification based on histological classification of non-cirrhosis versus cirrhosis demonstrates superior clinical utility compared to the early versus advanced stage stratification. Furthermore, the Rotterdam criteria proved to be clinically applicable for assessing biochemical responses specifically in patients with histological cirrhosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40155490What 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.