Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2021.
World J Gastroenterol. Feb 21, 2021; 27(7): 641-653
Published online Feb 21, 2021. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v27.i7.641
Figure 1
Figure 1 Flowchart of patient enrolment. BMI: Body mass index; HBV: Hepatitis B virus; LSM: Liver stiffness measurements; FibroScan: Transient elastography.
Figure 2
Figure 2 Distribution of predicted fibrosis stages by transient elastography according to different METAVIR liver fibrosis stages. FibroScan: Transient elastography.
Figure 3
Figure 3 Comparison of liver stiffness measurement values by transient elastography in patients with different liver inflammation activities in different METAVIR fibrosis stages. LSM: Liver stiffness measurements.
Figure 4
Figure 4 Prevalence of misdiagnosis of stage of liver fibrosis by transient elastography in patients with different inflammatory activities.
Figure 5
Figure 5 Comparison of effects of different liver inflammatory activities on diagnostic performance of transient elastography in assessing different fibrosis stages. A: ≥ F2; B: ≥ F3; C: F4. AUC: Area under the curve; ≥ F2: Significant fibrosis; ≥ F3: Advanced fibrosis; F4: Cirrhosis.
Figure 6
Figure 6 Comparison of receiver operating characteristic curves in prediction model and single related factors with regard to misdiagnosis of the stage of liver fibrosis using transient elastography. ALT: Alanine aminotransferase; AST: Aspartate aminotransferase; ROC: Receiver operating characteristic; FibroScan: Transient elastography.