Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Gastroenterol. Sep 21, 2015; 21(35): 10184-10191
Published online Sep 21, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i35.10184
Table 3 Receiver operating curve analysis of measured parameters for identifying the presence and Child-Pugh class of cirrhosis, and the presence of esophageal varices
ParameterCutoff valuesDifferentiationsAUCSensitivitySpecificity
PLT (109/L)217Normal liver vs cirrhosis0.90397.5%86.8%
140Child-Pugh class A vs B0.66166.0%64.2%
114Child-Pugh class A vs C0.85980.9%82.5%
96.5Child-Pugh class B vs C0.70361.1%79.4%
99.5No varices vs varices0.67861.5%60.2%
SV/PLT0.83Normal liver vs cirrhosis0.95291.2%97.5%
2.99Child-Pugh class A vs B0.66358.9%63.8%
5.19Child-Pugh class A vs C0.87369.8%95.7%
5.40Child-Pugh class B vs C0.72269.8%62.1%
4.13No varices vs varices0.78272.7%68.4%
SI/PLT2Normal liver vs cirrhosis0.96793.7%97.5%
6.08Child-Pugh class A vs B0.69265.3%61.7%
12.55Child-Pugh class A vs C0.90276.2%97.9%
13.01Child-Pugh class B vs C0.72474.6%63.2%
11.08No varices vs varices0.77372.7%70.1%
RVPS883.90Normal liver vs cirrhosis0.97397.5%92.7%
330.98Child-Pugh class A vs B0.74078.7%62.1%
175.72Child-Pugh class A vs C0.97693.6%92.1%
129.36Child-Pugh class B vs C0.85372.6%81.0%
226.46No varices vs varices0.75864.1%79.5%