SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
MAST versus FAST for active fibrotic MASH: a meta-analysis supporting risk-stratified diagnostic pathways.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of two new scores-FibroScan-AST (FAST) and MRI-AST (MAST)-for identifying metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) with significant fibrosis. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines, with the protocol registered in PROSPERO. Four studies that compared FAST and MAST with liver biopsies were included. The combined sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model. Heterogeneity and threshold effects were assessed using subgroup and sensitivity analyses, respectively. Results: The FAST score showed moderate sensitivity (44.7, 95% CI: 28.3-62.4%) and quite high specificity (87.5%, 76.8-93.7%), with an AUC of 0.83 (0.75-0.89). MAST showed better sensitivity (55.9%, 41.5-69.3%) and specificity (88.1%, 85.2-90.6%), with an AUC of 0.84 (0.81-0.88). The difference in the AUC was not statistically significant ( Conclusion: Although MAST and FAST differ in sensitivity and stability, their overall diagnostic accuracy does not differ statistically. The core limitation of this study is that only four studies were included, which restricts the reliability of the pooled estimates. Therefore, the findings should be interpreted with caution. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251109029.
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.