Research Article
Evaluation of Chronic Liver Disease: Does Ultrasound Scoring Criteria Help?
Table 4
Comparison with prior studies of validity of ultrasound score in the evaluation of chronic liver disease.
| Study | Number of patients | Characteristics | Sensitivity | Specificity |
| Gaiani et al. [13] 1997 | 212 | US scoring comprising of seven morphological and hemodynamic hepatic parameters | 82% | 79% | Hung et al. [8] 2003 | 210 | US scoring comprising of liver surface, parenchyma, vascular structure, and spleen size | HBV-related cirrhosis 77.8% HCV-related cirrhosis 82.4% | HBV-related cirrhosis 92.5% HCV-related cirrhosis 70.7% | Choong et al. [15] 2012 | 156 | Three hepatic features assessed | 53% (combined score liver surface and edge) | 94% (combined score of surface and texture) | Afzal et al. 2013 | 116 | US scoring system based on six variables | Liver morphology 90.3% (stage) 84.1% (grade) Liver morphology + size of liver, spleen, and PV 44.4% (stage) 41.5% (grade) | Liver morphology 47.7% (stage) 44.1% (grade) Liver morphology + size of liver, spleen, and PV 88.6% (stage) 91.2% (grade) |
|
|