Albumin and magnetic resonance imaging-liver volume to identify hepatitis B-related cirrhosis and esophageal varices

doi:10.3748/wjg.v21.i3.988

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 21, Issue 3

This Article

Academic Content and Language Evaluation of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (9429)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, WORD series, HTML series, Figures (1-2) series, Tables (1-5) series.

Item

Count

PDF

406

WORD

245

HTML

6303

Figures (1-2)

145

Tables (1-5)

140

Sum=7239

Publishing Process of This Article

The chart showing Browse series, Download series.

Item

Count

Browse

946

Download

1244

Sum=2190

Jan 21, 2015 (publication date) through May 18, 2024

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (17)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastroenterology

ISSN

1007-9327

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Prospective Study

World J Gastroenterol. Jan 21, 2015; 21(3): 988-996
Published online Jan 21, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i3.988

Table 4 Volume parameters of each liver lobe in determining the presence and Child-Pugh class of liver cirrhosis, and predicting the presence of esophageal varices

Parameters	Cut-off	Differentiations	AUC	Sensitivity	Specificity
RV (mm³)	692.3	No cirrhosis vs cirrhosis	0.816	70.6%	75%
	508.9	Class A vs C	0.900	90.3%	84.5%
	522.2	Class B vs C	0.803	70.0%	88%
	579.45	No varices vs varices	0.780	71.4%	70.0%
LMV (mm³)	201.3	No cirrhosis vs cirrhosis	0.754	70.6%	77.0%
	181.1	Class A vs B	0.728	68.0%	71.0%
	155.4	Class A vs C	0.751	82.1%	75.0%
LLV (mm³)	233.2	Class A vs B	0.761	74.4%	73.1%
	224.9	Class A vs C	0.792	82.1%	75.0%
CV (mm³)	23.8	No cirrhosis vs cirrhosis	0.756	69.0%	65.0%
	25.1	Class A vs C	0.806	85.7%	69.0%
RV/ALB	19.9	Class A vs C	0.801	68.8%	79.6%
	20.46	No varices vs varices	0.890	80.0%	83.5%
LLV/ALB	0.9	No cirrhosis vs cirrhosis	0.763	70.6%	71.0%
	8.3	Class A vs C	0.752	68.8%	65.5%
	7.5	Class B vs C	0.900	93.8%	81.5%
CV/ALB	0.6	No cirrhosis vs cirrhosis	0.860	82.0%	83.0%
	0.825	No varices vs varices	0.673	64.0%	67.0%

RV: Right liver lobe volume; LMV: Left medial liver lobe volume; LLV: Left lateral liver lobe volume; CV: Caudate lobe volume; ALB: Albumin.

Citation: Li H, Chen TW, Li ZL, Zhang XM, Li CJ, Chen XL, Chen GW, Hu JN, Ye YQ. Albumin and magnetic resonance imaging-liver volume to identify hepatitis B-related cirrhosis and esophageal varices. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21(3): 988-996
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v21/i3/988.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i3.988