ArticlePloS one2025
Diagnostic performance of microvascular flow imaging for noninvasive assessment of liver fibrosis in chronic liver disease.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Diagnostic Performance of Microvascular Imaging for Detecting Histologically Confirmed Liver Fibrosis in Autoimmune Hepatitis: Comparison with Transient Elastography and Serum Biomarkers.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Correction: Diagnostic performance of microvascular flow imaging for noninvasive assessment of liver fibrosis in chronic liver disease.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsChronic liver disease (CLD) represents a significant global health challenge necessitating the evaluation of liver fibrosis. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of microvascular flow (MV-flow) imaging in evaluating liver fibrosis and compare it with other non-invasive tools.
methodsBetween July 2020 and June 2022, we prospectively enrolled patients scheduled for liver biopsy, concurrently measuring MV-flow imaging, transient elastography (TE), and two-dimensional shear wave elastography (2D-SWE) as part of the assessment process. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of MV-flow imaging, 2D-SWE, and TE based on histologic staging of liver fibrosis using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), and calculated the optimal cut-off value.
resultsA total of 89 participants were included. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease was the most common etiology of CLD (32.6%). The liver fibrosis stage distribution was as follows: stage 0 (11.2%), stage 1 (31.5%), stage 2 (25.8%), stage 3 (13.5%), and stage 4 (18.0%). The MV-flow scoring system's cut-off values and AUROCs for predicting stage 2, stage 3, and cirrhosis were 2.1 (0.836), 2.5 (0.955), and 2.9 (0.942), respectively. The MV-flow scoring system's performance in predicting advanced fibrosis (stage 3) was comparable to TE (p = 0.170) and 2D-SWE (p = 0.456). MV-flow imaging misclassified 9.0% of patients in predicting advanced fibrosis. A sequential combination of 2D-SWE and MV-flow imaging, following the specified cut-off, minimized the risk of missing advanced fibrosis to 1.2%.
conclusionMV-flow imaging is an effective tool for predicting liver fibrosis stage. Integrating MV-flow imaging with 2D-SWE can enhance the assessment of liver fibrosis in patients with CLD.
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.