Therese Herlihy, Mary Moran, Aoife Heeney, Hajra Okhai, Davide De Franceso, Carmel Cronin, Eoin Feeney, Diarmuid Houlihan, Stephen Stewart, Aoife G Cotter
{"title":"瞬态弹性成像与声辐射力脉冲弹性成像在评估慢性丙型肝炎患者肝脏健康方面的比较：TRACER 研究的基线结果。","authors":"Therese Herlihy, Mary Moran, Aoife Heeney, Hajra Okhai, Davide De Franceso, Carmel Cronin, Eoin Feeney, Diarmuid Houlihan, Stephen Stewart, Aoife G Cotter","doi":"10.1177/1742271X221139181","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Liver stiffness measurements can be used to assess liver fibrosis and can be acquired by transient elastography using FibroScan<sup>®</sup> and with Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse imaging. The study aimed to establish liver stiffness measurement scores using FibroScan<sup>®</sup> and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse in a chronic hepatitis C cohort and to explore the correlation and agreement between the scores and the factors influencing agreement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients had liver stiffness measurements acquired with FibroScan® (right lobe of liver) and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse (right and left lobe of liver). We used Spearman's correlation to explore the relationship between FibroScan® and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse scores. A Bland-Altman plot was used to evaluate bias between the mean percentage differences of FibroScan® and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse scores. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to assess how factors such as body mass index, age and gender influenced the agreement between liver stiffness measurements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Bland-Altman showed the average (95% CI) percentage difference between FibroScan® and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse scores was 27.5% (17.8, 37.2), <i>p</i> < 0.001. There was a negative correlation between the average and percentage difference of the FibroScan<sup>®</sup> and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse scores ( <i>r</i> (95% CI) = -0.41 (-0.57, -0.21), <i>p</i> < 0.001), thus showing that percentage difference gets smaller for greater FibroScan<sup>®</sup> and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse scores. Body mass index was the biggest influencing factor on differences between FibroScan<sup>®</sup> and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse (<i>r</i> = 0.12 (0.01, 0.23), <i>p</i> = 0.05). Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse scores at segment 5/8 and the left lobe showed good correlation (<i>r</i> (95% CI) = 0.83 (0.75, 0.89), <i>p</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>FibroScan<sup>®</sup> and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse had similar predictive values for the assessment of liver stiffness in patients with chronic hepatitis C infection; however, the level of agreement varied across lower and higher scores.</p>","PeriodicalId":7522,"journal":{"name":"Agronomy Journal","volume":"77 1","pages":"244-253"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10621485/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparison of transient elastography with acoustic radiation force impulse elastography for the assessment of liver health in patients with chronic hepatitis C: Baseline results from the TRACER study.\",\"authors\":\"Therese Herlihy, Mary Moran, Aoife Heeney, Hajra Okhai, Davide De Franceso, Carmel Cronin, Eoin Feeney, Diarmuid Houlihan, Stephen Stewart, Aoife G Cotter\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1742271X221139181\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Liver stiffness measurements can be used to assess liver fibrosis and can be acquired by transient elastography using FibroScan<sup>®</sup> and with Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse imaging. The study aimed to establish liver stiffness measurement scores using FibroScan<sup>®</sup> and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse in a chronic hepatitis C cohort and to explore the correlation and agreement between the scores and the factors influencing agreement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients had liver stiffness measurements acquired with FibroScan® (right lobe of liver) and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse (right and left lobe of liver). We used Spearman's correlation to explore the relationship between FibroScan® and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse scores. A Bland-Altman plot was used to evaluate bias between the mean percentage differences of FibroScan® and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse scores. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to assess how factors such as body mass index, age and gender influenced the agreement between liver stiffness measurements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Bland-Altman showed the average (95% CI) percentage difference between FibroScan® and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse scores was 27.5% (17.8, 37.2), <i>p</i> < 0.001. There was a negative correlation between the average and percentage difference of the FibroScan<sup>®</sup> and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse scores ( <i>r</i> (95% CI) = -0.41 (-0.57, -0.21), <i>p</i> < 0.001), thus showing that percentage difference gets smaller for greater FibroScan<sup>®</sup> and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse scores. Body mass index was the biggest influencing factor on differences between FibroScan<sup>®</sup> and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse (<i>r</i> = 0.12 (0.01, 0.23), <i>p</i> = 0.05). Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse scores at segment 5/8 and the left lobe showed good correlation (<i>r</i> (95% CI) = 0.83 (0.75, 0.89), <i>p</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>FibroScan<sup>®</sup> and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse had similar predictive values for the assessment of liver stiffness in patients with chronic hepatitis C infection; however, the level of agreement varied across lower and higher scores.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7522,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Agronomy Journal\",\"volume\":\"77 1\",\"pages\":\"244-253\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10621485/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Agronomy Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1742271X221139181\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRONOMY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agronomy Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1742271X221139181","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AGRONOMY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景：肝脏僵硬度测量可用于评估肝纤维化，可通过使用 FibroScan® 和声学辐射力脉冲成像进行瞬态弹性成像获得。该研究的目的是在慢性丙型肝炎队列中使用 FibroScan® 和 Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse 建立肝脏僵硬度测量评分，并探讨评分之间的相关性和一致性以及影响一致性的因素：患者使用 FibroScan®（肝脏右叶）和 Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse（肝脏左右叶）测量肝脏硬度。我们使用斯皮尔曼相关性来探讨 FibroScan® 和 Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse 分数之间的关系。我们使用 Bland-Altman 图来评估 FibroScan® 和 Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse 评分的平均百分比差异之间的偏差。单变量和多变量分析用于评估体重指数、年龄和性别等因素如何影响肝脏硬度测量结果之间的一致性：Bland-Altman显示，FibroScan®和声学辐射力脉冲评分之间的平均（95% CI）百分比差异为27.5% (17.8, 37.2), p ®和声学辐射力脉冲评分 ( r (95% CI) = -0.41 (-0.57, -0.21), p ®和声学辐射力脉冲评分之间的平均（95% CI）百分比差异为27.5% (17.8, 37.2), p ®和声学辐射力脉冲评分 ( r (95% CI) = -0.41 (-0.57, -0.21), p ®。体重指数是影响 FibroScan® 和 Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse 之间差异的最大因素（r = 0.12 (0.01, 0.23), p = 0.05）。第 5/8 段和左叶的声辐射力脉冲评分显示出良好的相关性（r (95% CI) = 0.83 (0.75, 0.89)，p 结论：FibroScan® 和声辐射力脉冲评分之间的相关性较低：FibroScan® 和声学辐射力脉冲对慢性丙型肝炎感染患者肝脏僵硬度的评估具有相似的预测价值；但是，较低和较高分数的一致性水平存在差异。
A comparison of transient elastography with acoustic radiation force impulse elastography for the assessment of liver health in patients with chronic hepatitis C: Baseline results from the TRACER study.
Background: Liver stiffness measurements can be used to assess liver fibrosis and can be acquired by transient elastography using FibroScan® and with Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse imaging. The study aimed to establish liver stiffness measurement scores using FibroScan® and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse in a chronic hepatitis C cohort and to explore the correlation and agreement between the scores and the factors influencing agreement.
Methods: Patients had liver stiffness measurements acquired with FibroScan® (right lobe of liver) and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse (right and left lobe of liver). We used Spearman's correlation to explore the relationship between FibroScan® and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse scores. A Bland-Altman plot was used to evaluate bias between the mean percentage differences of FibroScan® and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse scores. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to assess how factors such as body mass index, age and gender influenced the agreement between liver stiffness measurements.
Results: Bland-Altman showed the average (95% CI) percentage difference between FibroScan® and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse scores was 27.5% (17.8, 37.2), p < 0.001. There was a negative correlation between the average and percentage difference of the FibroScan® and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse scores ( r (95% CI) = -0.41 (-0.57, -0.21), p < 0.001), thus showing that percentage difference gets smaller for greater FibroScan® and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse scores. Body mass index was the biggest influencing factor on differences between FibroScan® and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse (r = 0.12 (0.01, 0.23), p = 0.05). Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse scores at segment 5/8 and the left lobe showed good correlation (r (95% CI) = 0.83 (0.75, 0.89), p < 0.001).
Conclusion: FibroScan® and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse had similar predictive values for the assessment of liver stiffness in patients with chronic hepatitis C infection; however, the level of agreement varied across lower and higher scores.
期刊介绍：
After critical review and approval by the editorial board, AJ publishes articles reporting research findings in soil–plant relationships; crop science; soil science; biometry; crop, soil, pasture, and range management; crop, forage, and pasture production and utilization; turfgrass; agroclimatology; agronomic models; integrated pest management; integrated agricultural systems; and various aspects of entomology, weed science, animal science, plant pathology, and agricultural economics as applied to production agriculture.
Notes are published about apparatus, observations, and experimental techniques. Observations usually are limited to studies and reports of unrepeatable phenomena or other unique circumstances. Review and interpretation papers are also published, subject to standard review. Contributions to the Forum section deal with current agronomic issues and questions in brief, thought-provoking form. Such papers are reviewed by the editor in consultation with the editorial board.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
