Hepatology needs to enter the 21st Century ?

[Bali05]

http://ihlpress.com/pdf%20files/hepdart09_presentations/liver/5_afdal_HepDart%202009%20Afdhal.pdf

Thought this is a very interesting presentation not to miss that is why posted it again on its own.

Bali05

[tashka]

Agreed about autopsy. Pathologist is the best diagnostician.

But, I think, most of us here want to avoid this test for as long as possible.

[mike716]

:-(

[Bill1954]

"There is a crying need for a test that reliably shows fibrosis progression, the only way to guage how far off cirrosis is."

It's called autopsy, Mike.

Bill

[mike716]

Thanks. Good link. A very interesting and sound comparative study, I thought, which corroborates my own experience: Fibroscan unreliable (I had two, F3/F4 and F1/F2!), biopsy a little better but you have to wait years for a second one to show any relaible changes, and it (biopsy) is just as observer-sensitive as Fibroscan.

In other words, as yet there is no trustworthy test for fibrosis staging.

However, the article's conclusion (the only thing that means anything is whether or not you've got cirrosis) begs the issue. There is a crying need for a test that reliably shows fibrosis progression, the only way to guage how far off cirrosis is.

Thanks again for the article, though. The biopsy slides are especially good, and hard to find.

Mike

[desrt]

Interesting, but reads like a sales pitch. Most reputable studies will clearly state whether or not the authors have a financial stake or other interest in the products involved.