2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2021.05.025
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on non-invasive tests for evaluation of liver disease severity and prognosis – 2021 update

Abstract: Non-invasive tests are increasingly being used to improve the diagnosis and prognostication of chronic liver diseases across aetiologies. Herein, we provide the latest update to the EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on the use of non-invasive tests for the evaluation of liver disease severity and prognosis, focusing on the topics for which relevant evidence has been published in the last 5 years.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

10
615
1
16

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1,013 publications
(789 citation statements)
references
References 306 publications
10
615
1
16
Order By: Relevance
“…However, so far, serum markers and Doppler ultrasound have shown limited diagnostic accuracy for portal hypertension and are not recommended by the current guidelines. 3,29 In the present study, we investigated eight serum-based non-invasive models, including AAR, APRI, CSPH risk score, FIB-4, Fibrosis Index, GPR, King's score, and Lok score, [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] and three imaging-based parameters, including liver stiffness, portal vein diameter and portal vein velocity. However, all of the above parameters showed poor diagnostic performance for identifying CSPH.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, so far, serum markers and Doppler ultrasound have shown limited diagnostic accuracy for portal hypertension and are not recommended by the current guidelines. 3,29 In the present study, we investigated eight serum-based non-invasive models, including AAR, APRI, CSPH risk score, FIB-4, Fibrosis Index, GPR, King's score, and Lok score, [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] and three imaging-based parameters, including liver stiffness, portal vein diameter and portal vein velocity. However, all of the above parameters showed poor diagnostic performance for identifying CSPH.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Third, we estimated liver fibrosis with FIB-4, which has not been validated against the gold standard of liver biopsy for alcohol-related liver disease [35]. Despite that few authors have expressed concerns about the accuracy of FIB-4 [36], the European Association for the Study of the Liver has recently published an updated version of their guideline for the non-invasive diagnosis of a liver injury and recommends the use of FIB-4 as a first-line method for detecting patients with high probability of presenting significant liver disease [37]. The present study adds to the literature that categorizes FIB-4 as a reliable tool for estimating liver fibrosis in patients in whom the performance of a liver biopsy is unlikely [38].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Just recently, the EASL updated their "Clinical Practice Guidelines on non-invasive tests for evaluation of liver disease severity and prognosis", emphasizing the high predictive value and clinical relevance of simple non-invasive tests (NIT) such as the FIB-4 score (calculated on the basis of age, AST/ALT levels and platelet count [1]) to rule out advanced fibrosis and stratify the risk of liver-related outcomes in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) [2].…”
Section: Letter To the Editormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Patients with other liver diseases (including liver cirrhosis and other liver diseases than NAFLD) or cancer diagnoses 12 months prior to the index date (initial ambulant NAFLD diagnosis) were excluded. NAFLD patients were stratified into a low risk (FIB-4 <1.30, n=17,967) and an intermediate-high risk group (FIB-4 ≥1.30, n=12,032), based on the EASL recommendation on NITs in patients observed in primary care or outside the liver clinic [2]. Basic characteristics of study patients are displayed in supplementary table 1.…”
Section: Letter To the Editormentioning
confidence: 99%