我们集团组织了 3000 多个全球系列会议 每年在美国、欧洲和美国举办的活动亚洲得到 1000 多个科学协会的支持 并出版了 700+ 开放获取期刊包含超过50000名知名人士、知名科学家担任编委会成员。

开放获取期刊获得更多读者和引用
700 种期刊 15,000,000 名读者 每份期刊 获得 25,000 多名读者

索引于
  • 哥白尼索引
  • 谷歌学术
  • 夏尔巴·罗密欧
  • 打开 J 门
  • Genamics 期刊搜索
  • 中国知网(CNKI)
  • 电子期刊图书馆
  • 参考搜索
  • 哈姆达大学
  • 亚利桑那州EBSCO
  • OCLC-世界猫
  • SWB 在线目录
  • 虚拟生物学图书馆 (vifabio)
  • 普布隆斯
  • 日内瓦医学教育与研究基金会
  • 欧洲酒吧
  • ICMJE
分享此页面

抽象的

A Caution in the use of the NAFIC Scoring System as a Diagnostic Screening Tool for Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis

Akinobu Nakamura, Masato Yoneda, Yoshio Sumida, Hideaki Miyoshi, Atsushi Nakajima, Tatsuya Atsumi and Yasuo Terauchi

Objective: We reinvestigated the clinical usefulness of the NAFIC and modified NAFIC scoring systems in Japanese patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) according to the presence/absence of obesity. Methods: A total of 141 Japanese patients with liver-biopsy-confirmed NAFLD were enrolled. All patients were classified as having nonalcoholic fatty liver (NAFL) or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) on the basis of Matteoni’s classification. Obesity was defined as a body mass index of ≥25. To evaluate the overall accuracy of the NAFIC and modified NAFIC scoring systems, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of these scoring systems for the diagnosis of NASH were calculated. Results: In the obese group, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of the NAFIC scoring system for the diagnosis of NASH were 67.3%, 76.2%, 77.8% and 65.3%, respectively, while the corresponding values for the modified NAFIC scoring systems were 78.8%, 69.0%, 75.9% and 72.5%. On the other hand, in the nonobese group, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of the NAFIC scoring system were 47.1%, 86.7%, 66.7% and 74.3%, respectively, while those of the modified NAFIC scoring system were 58.8%, 83.3%, 66.7% and 78.1%, respectively. When the patients were divided by sex, the sensitivity of the NAFIC and modified NAFIC scoring systems in the female nonobese group were 53.8% and 69.2%, respectively. However, surprisingly, in the male nonobese group, the sensitivity of both the scoring systems was only 25.0%. Conclusion: The sensitivity of both the NAFIC and modified NAFIC scoring systems for the diagnosis of NASH was lower in the male nonobese group than in all the other groups. These findings suggest that caution should be exercised in the use of the NAFIC scoring system as a diagnostic screening tool for NASH in Japanese patients with NAFLD, especially male nonobese patients.