Reducing NAFLD‐screening time: A comparative study of eight diagnostic methods offering an alternative to ultrasound scans

Background & Aims The use of ultrasound scan (US) in non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) screening overloads US waiting lists. We hypothesized and tested a hybrid two‐step method, consisting of applying a formula, to exclude subjects at low risk, before US. Methods The sample included 2970...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inLiver international Vol. 39; no. 1; pp. 187 - 196
Main Authors Procino, Filippo, Misciagna, Giovanni, Veronese, Nicola, Caruso, Maria G., Chiloiro, Marisa, Cisternino, Anna M., Notarnicola, Maria, Bonfiglio, Caterina, Bruno, Irene, Buongiorno, Claudia, Campanella, Angelo, Deflorio, Valentina, Franco, Isabella, Guerra, Rocco, Leone, Carla M., Mirizzi, Antonella, Nitti, Alessandro, Osella, Alberto R.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.01.2019
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Background & Aims The use of ultrasound scan (US) in non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) screening overloads US waiting lists. We hypothesized and tested a hybrid two‐step method, consisting of applying a formula, to exclude subjects at low risk, before US. Methods The sample included 2970 males and females (937 with NAFLD) diagnosed by US. We selected eight formulas: Fatty Liver Index (FLI), Hepatic Steatosis Index (HIS), body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), Abdominal Volume Index (AVI), waist‐to‐height ratio (WHtR), waist/height0.5 (WHT.5R) and Body Roundness Index (BRI), and calculated their performance in the two‐step method evaluating percentage reduction of the number of liver US (US reduction percentage), percentage of false negative and percentage of NAFLD identified. Results The US reductions percentage were 52.2% (WHtR), 52.1% (HIS), 51.8% (FLI), 50.8% (BRI), 50.7% (BMI and WHt_5R), 46.5% (WC) and 45.2% (AVI). The false negative percentage were 8.5% (WHtR), 7.9% (BRI), 7.3% (WHt_5R), 7.2% (BMI), 6.7% (HIS), 6.6% (FLI), 5.6% (WC) and 5.2% (AVI). The best percentage of NALFD identified was obtained using AVI (83.6%) before US, then WC (82.2%), FLI (79%), HIS (78.9%), BMI (77.3%), WHt_5R (76.9%), BRI (74.8%) and WHtR (73%). Conclusion The best formula to use in two‐step diagnostic NAFLD screening was AVI, which showed a low false negative rate and a higher percentage of identified NAFLD. Other studies evaluating the economic advantages of this screening method are warranted.
Bibliography:Funding information
To reduce the NAFLD‐screening timeframe, we hypothesized and tested a hybrid two‐step method, consisting of applying a formula before ultrasound scanning (US) instead of US directly. Considering the percentage of US reduction, false negative rate and percentage of identified NAFLD using each formula before US, the Abdominal Volume Index (AVI), resulted the best formula to couple with US in NAFLD screening of a large population, reducing the US waiting lists timeframe.
Handling Editor: Helena Cortez‐Pinto
This work was funded by the Italian Ministry of Health (N° ICS‐160.2/RF03.111) 2004‐2006.
Lay Summary
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ObjectType-Article-2
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ISSN:1478-3223
1478-3231
1478-3231
DOI:10.1111/liv.13970