This document was published more than 2 years ago. The nature of the evidence may have changed.
Hepatitis C is the most common cause of development of fibrosis in the liver. Other causes are hepatitis B and alcohol abuse. This report has studied the scientific evidence for transient elastography to examine the degree of fibrosis development in the liver.
For more on this report, please download the full text report
Tables in English: Table 1a Characteristics and quality assessment of included systematic reviews on transient elastography, page 8; Table 1b Characteristics and quality assessment of included original studies on transient elastography, page 8; Table 2 Outcome results of included studies on transient elastography, page 13
References, page 21
The quality of evidence is graded into four levels according to the GRADE system:
High quality of evidence (). Based on high or medium quality studies without weakening factors in an overall assessment.
Moderate quality of evidence (). Based on high or medium quality studies with the existence of occasional weakening factors in an overall assessment.
Low quality of evidence (). Based on high or medium quality studies with weakening factors in an overall assessment.
Very low quality of evidence (). When scientific evidence is lacking, where the available studies are of low quality or where studies of similar quality show contradictory results, the scientific evidence is stated to be inadequate.
The grading of evidence according to GRADE is in the first instance based on high or medium quality studies, where such exist. If there are both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of the same quality, the grading of evidence is based on RCTs.
How to cite this report: SBU. Transient elastography with suspected fibrosis and cirrhosis of the liver. Stockholm: Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment (SBU); 2013. SBU Alert report no 2013 01. ISSN 1652-7151. http://www.sbu.se/201301e
presents a comprehensive, systematic assessment of available scientific evidence. The certainty of the evidence for each finding is systematically reviewed and graded. Full assessments include economic, social, and ethical impact analyses.
SBU assessments are performed by a team of leading professional practitioners and academics, patient/user representatives and SBU staff. Prior to approval and publication, assessments are reviewed by independent experts, SBU’s Scientific Advisory Committees and Board of Directors.