Accuracy of liver stiffness, spleen stiffness, and LS-spleen diameter to platelet ratio score in detection of esophageal varices: Systemic review and meta-analysis

Wuttiporn Manatsathit, Hrishikesh Samant, Saurabh Kapur, Thammasin Ingviya, Mohammad Esmadi, Karn Wijarnpreecha, Timothy M McCashland

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and Aim: There is increasing evidence of non-invasive measurement using elastography such liver stiffness (LS), spleen stiffness (SS), and LS-spleen diameter to platelet ratio score (LSPS) for detection of esophageal varices (EV); however, data regarding comparison between these three parameters are limited. Methods: We performed a systemic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating performance of LS, SS, and LSPS for detection of EV and high risk/clinically significant EV (HREV). Pooled sensitivity, specificity, log diagnostic odd ratio (LDOR), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of LS, SS, and LSPS for detection of EV and HREV were analyzed and compared. Publication bias was assessed by Deeks' funnel plot. Results: SS and LSPS were superior to LS for detection of EV with higher sensitivity (0.90 and 0.91 vs 0.85), specificity (0.73 and 0.76 vs 0.64), LDOR (3.24 and 3.35 vs 2.26), and AUC (0.899 and 0.851 vs 0.817). For HREV, SS had the highest sensitivity (0.87) followed by LS (0.85) and LSPS (0.82); however, SS had the lowest specificity (0.52), LDOR (2.09), and AUC (0.807) whereas LSPS had the highest specificity (0.77), LDOR (2.74), and AUC (0.861). Conclusion: For detection of EV, we prefer using LSPS and SS over LS when available, while LS, SS, and LSPS cannot be recommended for detection of HREV due to their moderate sensitivity and specificity.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1696-1706
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (Australia)
Volume33
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2018

Fingerprint

Esophageal and Gastric Varices
Meta-Analysis
Blood Platelets
Spleen
Liver
Area Under Curve
Odds Ratio
Elasticity Imaging Techniques
Sensitivity and Specificity
Publication Bias
ROC Curve

Keywords

  • cirrhosis
  • elastography
  • esophageal varices
  • liver stiffness
  • significant/high risk esophageal varices
  • spleen stiffness

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Hepatology
  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Accuracy of liver stiffness, spleen stiffness, and LS-spleen diameter to platelet ratio score in detection of esophageal varices : Systemic review and meta-analysis. / Manatsathit, Wuttiporn; Samant, Hrishikesh; Kapur, Saurabh; Ingviya, Thammasin; Esmadi, Mohammad; Wijarnpreecha, Karn; McCashland, Timothy M.

In: Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (Australia), Vol. 33, No. 10, 10.2018, p. 1696-1706.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Manatsathit, Wuttiporn ; Samant, Hrishikesh ; Kapur, Saurabh ; Ingviya, Thammasin ; Esmadi, Mohammad ; Wijarnpreecha, Karn ; McCashland, Timothy M. / Accuracy of liver stiffness, spleen stiffness, and LS-spleen diameter to platelet ratio score in detection of esophageal varices : Systemic review and meta-analysis. In: Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (Australia). 2018 ; Vol. 33, No. 10. pp. 1696-1706.
@article{1d5a4ce830d04faeb1a0ecb98ec0bbd0,
title = "Accuracy of liver stiffness, spleen stiffness, and LS-spleen diameter to platelet ratio score in detection of esophageal varices: Systemic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "Background and Aim: There is increasing evidence of non-invasive measurement using elastography such liver stiffness (LS), spleen stiffness (SS), and LS-spleen diameter to platelet ratio score (LSPS) for detection of esophageal varices (EV); however, data regarding comparison between these three parameters are limited. Methods: We performed a systemic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating performance of LS, SS, and LSPS for detection of EV and high risk/clinically significant EV (HREV). Pooled sensitivity, specificity, log diagnostic odd ratio (LDOR), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of LS, SS, and LSPS for detection of EV and HREV were analyzed and compared. Publication bias was assessed by Deeks' funnel plot. Results: SS and LSPS were superior to LS for detection of EV with higher sensitivity (0.90 and 0.91 vs 0.85), specificity (0.73 and 0.76 vs 0.64), LDOR (3.24 and 3.35 vs 2.26), and AUC (0.899 and 0.851 vs 0.817). For HREV, SS had the highest sensitivity (0.87) followed by LS (0.85) and LSPS (0.82); however, SS had the lowest specificity (0.52), LDOR (2.09), and AUC (0.807) whereas LSPS had the highest specificity (0.77), LDOR (2.74), and AUC (0.861). Conclusion: For detection of EV, we prefer using LSPS and SS over LS when available, while LS, SS, and LSPS cannot be recommended for detection of HREV due to their moderate sensitivity and specificity.",
keywords = "cirrhosis, elastography, esophageal varices, liver stiffness, significant/high risk esophageal varices, spleen stiffness",
author = "Wuttiporn Manatsathit and Hrishikesh Samant and Saurabh Kapur and Thammasin Ingviya and Mohammad Esmadi and Karn Wijarnpreecha and McCashland, {Timothy M}",
year = "2018",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1111/jgh.14271",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "33",
pages = "1696--1706",
journal = "Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (Australia)",
issn = "0815-9319",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Accuracy of liver stiffness, spleen stiffness, and LS-spleen diameter to platelet ratio score in detection of esophageal varices

T2 - Systemic review and meta-analysis

AU - Manatsathit, Wuttiporn

AU - Samant, Hrishikesh

AU - Kapur, Saurabh

AU - Ingviya, Thammasin

AU - Esmadi, Mohammad

AU - Wijarnpreecha, Karn

AU - McCashland, Timothy M

PY - 2018/10

Y1 - 2018/10

N2 - Background and Aim: There is increasing evidence of non-invasive measurement using elastography such liver stiffness (LS), spleen stiffness (SS), and LS-spleen diameter to platelet ratio score (LSPS) for detection of esophageal varices (EV); however, data regarding comparison between these three parameters are limited. Methods: We performed a systemic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating performance of LS, SS, and LSPS for detection of EV and high risk/clinically significant EV (HREV). Pooled sensitivity, specificity, log diagnostic odd ratio (LDOR), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of LS, SS, and LSPS for detection of EV and HREV were analyzed and compared. Publication bias was assessed by Deeks' funnel plot. Results: SS and LSPS were superior to LS for detection of EV with higher sensitivity (0.90 and 0.91 vs 0.85), specificity (0.73 and 0.76 vs 0.64), LDOR (3.24 and 3.35 vs 2.26), and AUC (0.899 and 0.851 vs 0.817). For HREV, SS had the highest sensitivity (0.87) followed by LS (0.85) and LSPS (0.82); however, SS had the lowest specificity (0.52), LDOR (2.09), and AUC (0.807) whereas LSPS had the highest specificity (0.77), LDOR (2.74), and AUC (0.861). Conclusion: For detection of EV, we prefer using LSPS and SS over LS when available, while LS, SS, and LSPS cannot be recommended for detection of HREV due to their moderate sensitivity and specificity.

AB - Background and Aim: There is increasing evidence of non-invasive measurement using elastography such liver stiffness (LS), spleen stiffness (SS), and LS-spleen diameter to platelet ratio score (LSPS) for detection of esophageal varices (EV); however, data regarding comparison between these three parameters are limited. Methods: We performed a systemic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating performance of LS, SS, and LSPS for detection of EV and high risk/clinically significant EV (HREV). Pooled sensitivity, specificity, log diagnostic odd ratio (LDOR), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of LS, SS, and LSPS for detection of EV and HREV were analyzed and compared. Publication bias was assessed by Deeks' funnel plot. Results: SS and LSPS were superior to LS for detection of EV with higher sensitivity (0.90 and 0.91 vs 0.85), specificity (0.73 and 0.76 vs 0.64), LDOR (3.24 and 3.35 vs 2.26), and AUC (0.899 and 0.851 vs 0.817). For HREV, SS had the highest sensitivity (0.87) followed by LS (0.85) and LSPS (0.82); however, SS had the lowest specificity (0.52), LDOR (2.09), and AUC (0.807) whereas LSPS had the highest specificity (0.77), LDOR (2.74), and AUC (0.861). Conclusion: For detection of EV, we prefer using LSPS and SS over LS when available, while LS, SS, and LSPS cannot be recommended for detection of HREV due to their moderate sensitivity and specificity.

KW - cirrhosis

KW - elastography

KW - esophageal varices

KW - liver stiffness

KW - significant/high risk esophageal varices

KW - spleen stiffness

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85052819390&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85052819390&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/jgh.14271

DO - 10.1111/jgh.14271

M3 - Review article

C2 - 29736946

AN - SCOPUS:85052819390

VL - 33

SP - 1696

EP - 1706

JO - Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (Australia)

JF - Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (Australia)

SN - 0815-9319

IS - 10

ER -