Suppr超能文献

非侵入性检测无法准确区分非酒精性脂肪性肝炎与单纯性脂肪变性:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Noninvasive Tests Do Not Accurately Differentiate Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis From Simple Steatosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

机构信息

Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology-Hepatology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism (NUTRIM), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.

Department of Methodology and Statistic, School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.

出版信息

Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Jun;16(6):837-861. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.08.024. Epub 2017 Aug 22.

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is a rapidly increasing health problem. Liver biopsy analysis is the most sensitive test to differentiate between nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and simple steatosis (SS), but noninvasive methods are needed. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of noninvasive tests for differentiating NASH from SS, focusing on blood markers.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of the PubMed, Medline and Embase (1990-2016) databases using defined keywords, limited to full-text papers in English and human adults, and identified 2608 articles. Two independent reviewers screened the articles and identified 122 eligible articles that used liver biopsy as reference standard. If at least 2 studies were available, pooled sensitivity (sens) and specificity (spec) values were determined using the Meta-Analysis Package for R (metafor).

RESULTS

In the 122 studies analyzed, 219 different blood markers (107 single markers and 112 scoring systems) were identified to differentiate NASH from simple steatosis, and 22 other diagnostic tests were studied. Markers identified related to several pathophysiological mechanisms. The markers analyzed in the largest proportions of studies were alanine aminotransferase (sens, 63.5% and spec, 74.4%) within routine biochemical tests, adiponectin (sensp, 72.0% and spec, 75.7%) within inflammatory markers, CK18-M30 (sens, 68.4% and spec, 74.2%) within markers of cell death or proliferation and homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (sens, 69.0% and spec, 72.7%) within the metabolic markers. Two scoring systems could also be pooled: the NASH test (differentiated NASH from borderline NASH plus simple steatosis with 22.9% sens and 95.3% spec) and the GlycoNASH test (67.1% sens and 63.8% spec).

CONCLUSION

In the meta-analysis, we found no test to differentiate NASH from SS with a high level of pooled sensitivity and specificity (≥80%). However, some blood markers, when included in scoring systems in single studies, identified patients with NASH with ≥80% sensitivity and specificity. Replication studies and more standardized study designs are urgently needed. At present, no marker or scoring system can be recommended for use in clinical practice to differentiate NASH from simple steatosis.

摘要

背景与目的

非酒精性脂肪性肝病是一种迅速增加的健康问题。肝活检分析是区分非酒精性脂肪性肝炎(NASH)和单纯性脂肪变性(SS)最敏感的检查方法,但需要非侵入性方法。我们对用于区分 NASH 和 SS 的非侵入性检查进行了系统评价和荟萃分析,重点是血液标志物。

方法

我们使用定义的关键字在 PubMed、Medline 和 Embase(1990-2016 年)数据库中进行了系统搜索,仅限于英文全文和成年人类的文章,并确定了 2608 篇文章。两名独立的审查员筛选了文章,并确定了 122 篇使用肝活检作为参考标准的合格文章。如果有至少 2 项研究可用,则使用 R 中的 Meta-Analysis Package(metafor)计算汇总敏感性(sens)和特异性(spec)值。

结果

在分析的 122 项研究中,确定了 219 种不同的血液标志物(107 种单一标志物和 112 种评分系统)来区分 NASH 和单纯性脂肪变性,并且研究了 22 种其他诊断测试。分析的标志物与几种病理生理机制有关。在研究中分析比例最大的标志物是丙氨酸氨基转移酶(常规生化检查中的 sens,63.5%和 spec,74.4%)、脂联素(炎症标志物中的 sensp,72.0%和 spec,75.7%)、CK18-M30(细胞死亡或增殖标志物中的 sens,68.4%和 spec,74.2%)和稳态模型评估的胰岛素抵抗(代谢标志物中的 sens,69.0%和 spec,72.7%)。还可以对两个评分系统进行汇总:NASH 测试(将 NASH 与边界性 NASH 加单纯性脂肪变性区分开来,灵敏度为 22.9%,特异性为 95.3%)和 GlycoNASH 测试(灵敏度为 67.1%,特异性为 63.8%)。

结论

在荟萃分析中,我们没有发现一种具有高汇总敏感性和特异性(≥80%)的检查方法可以将 NASH 与 SS 区分开来。然而,一些血液标志物,当包含在单独研究中的评分系统中时,可识别出≥80%敏感性和特异性的 NASH 患者。迫切需要复制研究和更标准化的研究设计。目前,尚无标志物或评分系统可推荐用于临床实践以区分 NASH 和单纯性脂肪变性。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验