2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2014.03.018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The cytokeratin-18 fragment level as a biomarker of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
13
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
0
13
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Previous efforts have been made to discover novel biomarkers or test panels to better distinguish NASH from simple steatosis. Some studies have suggested that measurement of serum CK18-M30 levels may be useful,26 27 although one study has concluded that CK18-M30 measurement alone lacked sufficient sensitivity for diagnosing NASH 28. Similarly, in the present study, we found that a substantial number of patients with persistent nALT (53 out of 105) had NASH on histology, and more importantly serum CK18-M30 levels alone did not have sufficiently high diagnostic accuracy for identifying NASH in this group of patients.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 69%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Previous efforts have been made to discover novel biomarkers or test panels to better distinguish NASH from simple steatosis. Some studies have suggested that measurement of serum CK18-M30 levels may be useful,26 27 although one study has concluded that CK18-M30 measurement alone lacked sufficient sensitivity for diagnosing NASH 28. Similarly, in the present study, we found that a substantial number of patients with persistent nALT (53 out of 105) had NASH on histology, and more importantly serum CK18-M30 levels alone did not have sufficiently high diagnostic accuracy for identifying NASH in this group of patients.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 69%
“…Since it is known that most of the available non-invasive tests/methods perform poorly in diagnosing NASH, better non-invasive tests are increasingly needed, especially for screening the subgroup of patients with NAFLD with nALT levels, who may be otherwise misdiagnosed as having less harmful disease by non-specialists. In this regard, serum CK18-M30 levels and other non-invasive clinical scoring systems have been previously investigated for their ability to accurately identify NASH in patients with NAFLD and abnALT 27 38. However, these non-invasive clinical scoring systems are complex combinations that include ‘omics’ methodology, which is usually not available in clinical practice.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies have investigated the role of CK-18 in NAFLD patients; however, few studies have examined the serum CK-18 concentration in patients with T2DM. 14,15 Furthermore, in examining the extensive application of CK-18 for the study of NAFLD, it is not clear whether the CK-18 concentration is naturally affected by hyperglycaemia milieu. Moreover, it is important to establish the diagnostic value of CK-18 for the identification of NAFLD in T2DM patients in clinical practice.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[7] Previous efforts have been made to discover novel biomarkers or test panels to better distinguish NASH from simple steatosis. Some studies have suggested that measurement of serum CK18-M30 levels may be useful; [26,27] although one study has concluded that CK18-M30 measurement alone lacked sufficient sensitivity for diagnosing NASH. [28] Similarly, in the present study, we found that a substantial number of patients with persistently nALT (53 out of 105) had NASH on histology, and more importantly, serum CK18-M30 levels alone did not have sufficiently high diagnostic accuracy…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…ability to accurately identify NASH in patients with NAFLD and abnALT. [27,38] However, these non-invasive clinical scoring systems are complex combinations that include "omics" methodology, which is usually not available in clinical practice.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%