Skip to main content

Table 3 Hepatologists’ attitude towards the use of radiological methods for diagnosis of significant fibrosis and cirrhosis

From: Role of liver biopsy versus non-invasive biomarkers for diagnosis of significant fibrosis and cirrhosis: a web-based survey

Variable Patients (n = 573)
Are you familiar with radiological methods for non-invasive assessment of hepatic fibrosis? %
 Very familiar 58.12
 Familiar 37.30
 Not familiar 4.58
Do you think radiological methods are reliable for non-invasive assessment of hepatic fibrosis? %
 Extremely likely (100%) 10.89
 Very likely (75%) 51.20
 Moderately likely (50%) 32.90
 Slightly likely (25%) 4.58
 Not at all likely (0%) 0.44
Do you think radiological methods for non-invasive assessment of hepatic fibrosis are acceptable by patients? %
 Extremely likely (100%) 51.20
 Very likely (75%) 37.90
 Moderately likely (50%) 8.71
 Slightly likely (25%) 1.74
 Not at all likely (0%) 0.44
Do you think radiological methods for non-invasive assessment of hepatic fibrosis are easily applicable in clinical practice? %
 Extremely likely (100%) 32.68
 Very likely (75%) 45.1
 Moderately likely (50%) 18.52
 Slightly likely (25%) 3.27
 Not at all likely (0%) 0.44
Which radiological methods do you use for noninvasive assessment of hepatic fibrosis? “Please choose all that apply" %
 Ultrasound 59.48
 Computed tomography 26.58
 Magnetic resonance imaging 24.62
 FibroScan 85.40
 Ultrasound based elastography 25.05
 MRI-based elastography 8.71
What are the limitations of using radiological methods for the assessment of hepatic fibrosis? Please choose all that apply %
 Cost 47.06
 Exposure to radiation 14.38
 Availability 60.13
 Accuracy 45.53
 I don’t trust non-invasive methods 0.22
What is encouraging you for using radiological methods for the assessment of hepatic fibrosis? Please choose all that apply %
 Easy to use 87.58
 Less costly than liver biopsy 41.61
 Not convinced that liver biopsy is the gold standard 15.03
 Patient refusal for liver biopsy 64.27