ArticleLa Tunisie medicale2024
Article in La Tunisie medicale, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSeveral non-invasive tests (NIT) have been reported for predicting liver fibrosis to avoid percutaneous liver biopsy (PLB).
aimTo evaluate the performance of NIT in Tunisian patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB).
methodsWe calculated the ASAT/platelet ratio index (APRI), GGT-to-platelet ratio (GPR), Fibrosis-4 score (FIB-4), and RDW/platelet ratio (RPR). The accuracy of NIT was compared with the Metavir score for the detection of liver fibrosis stage using the area under the ROC curves (AUROC).
resultsSeventy-seven CHB patients were included. For predicting significant fibrosis, the AUROC of GPR (0.81; CI95% [0.68-0.93]; P < 0.001) was significantly higher than that of RPR (0.67; CI95% [0.52-0.82]; P = 0.03) and FIB-4 (0.746; CI95% [0.61-0.88]; P = 0.002), but was similar to APRI (0.88; CI95% [0.79-0.97]; P < 0.001). For advanced fibrosis, the AUROC of GPR (0.93; CI95% [0.84-1]; P < 0.001) was higher than that of RPR (0.83; CI95% [0.69-0.97]; P < 0.001) and FIB-4 (0.88; CI95% [0.76-0.99]; P < 0.001), but similar to APRI (0.93; CI95% [0.87-0.99]; P < 0.001). For predicting cirrhosis, the AUROC of GPR (0.98; CI95% [0.95-1]; P < 0.001) was higher than that of APRI (0.95; CI95% [0.90-1]; P = 0.02), similar to RPR (0.99; CI95% [0.98-1]; P < 0.001) but lower than that of FIB-4 (1; CI95% [1-1]; P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, APRI (OR = 3.78; P = 0.002) and FIB-4 (OR = 2.65; P = 0.01) were independent predictors of significant fibrosis. GPR was the only independent predictor of advanced fibrosis (OR = 4.64; P = 0.001) and FIB-4 was the independent predictor of cirrhosis (OR = 2.85; P < 0.001).
conclusionGPR does not demonstrate significant advantages over APRI, FIB-4, and RPR in identifying liver fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.