ArticlePloS one2026
Superior diagnostic efficacy and cost advantage of FibroTouch over CHI3L1 for liver fibrosis in Chinese patients with chronic liver disease.
Article in PloS one, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNon-invasive assessment of liver fibrosis is essential for managing chronic liver disease (CLD). Serum chitinase-3-like protein 1 (CHI3L1) has been recommended in recent guidelines, while FibroTouch is a domestically produced device for liver stiffness measurement (LSM). However, no study has directly compared their diagnostic performance in CLD patients.
methodsThis retrospective study included 235 patients with CLD who underwent liver biopsy, FibroTouch examination, and laboratory testing (including CHI3L1 and routine blood parameters) at Hangzhou Xixi Hospital between October 2019 and December 2024. Liver fibrosis was staged according to the Scheuer scoring system (S0-S4). The diagnostic performance of LSM, CHI3L1, and six serological models (aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index [APRI], fibrosis-4 index [FIB-4], S-Index, Forns index, platelet ratio-to-RDW [PRP], and FIB-5) were evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, with liver biopsy as the reference standard.
resultsAmong the 235 patients, 125 (53.2%) had significant fibrosis (≥S2). LSM demonstrated excellent diagnostic accuracy, with area under the curve (AUROC) values of 0.86 for detecting significant fibrosis (≥S2), 0.91 for advanced fibrosis (≥S3), and 0.93 for cirrhosis (S4). CHI3L1 showed moderate diagnostic performance, with corresponding AUROC values of 0.72, 0.79, and 0.81. LSM exhibited the strongest correlation with histological staging (r = 0.70, p < 0.0001). Among serological models, APRI and FIB‑4 showed relatively better performance, while FIB‑5 performed poorly.
conclusionsIn this biopsy-proven CLD cohort, LSM demonstrated superior diagnostic performance for liver fibrosis assessment compared to CHI3L1 and six serological models, with the strongest correlation with histological staging. Given its better diagnostic efficacy and lower cost, LSM offers a practical advantage as a routine monitoring tool in clinical practice, particularly in resource-constrained settings.
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.