A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Assessing the Predictive Accuracy of the aMAP Risk Score for Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC): Diagnostic Test Accuracy and Meta-analysis. | LitMetric

Purpose: We aimed to perform a meta-analysis with the intention of evaluating the reliability and test accuracy of the aMAP risk score in the identification of HCC.

Methods: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science databases from inception to September 2023, to identify studies measuring the aMAP score in patients for the purpose of predicting the occurrence or recurrence of HCC. The meta-analysis was performed using the meta package in R version 4.1.0. The diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis was conducted using Meta-DiSc software.

Results: Thirty-five studies 102,959 participants were included in the review. The aMAP score was significantly higher in the HCC group than in the non-HCC group, with a mean difference of 6.15. When the aMAP score is at 50, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, negative likelihood ratio, and positive likelihood ratio with 95% CI was 0.961 (95% CI 0.936, 0.976), 0.344 (95% CI 0.227, 0.483), 0.114 (95% CI 0.087, 0.15), and 1.464 (95% CI 1.22, 1.756), respectively. At a cutoff value of 60, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, negative likelihood ratio, and positive likelihood ratio with 95% CI was 0.594 (95% CI 0.492, 0.689), 0.816 (95% CI 0.714, 0.888), 0.497 (95% CI 0.418, 0.591), and 3.235 (95% CI 2.284, 4.582), respectively.

Conclusion: The aMAP score is a reliable, accurate, and easy-to-use tool for predicting HCC patients of all stages, including early-stage HCC. Therefore, the aMAP score can be a valuable tool for surveillance of HCC patients and can help to improve early detection and reduce mortality.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11386263PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jceh.2024.102381DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

amap score
20
likelihood ratio
16
95%
10
accuracy amap
8
amap risk
8
risk score
8
test accuracy
8
accuracy meta-analysis
8
pooled sensitivity
8
sensitivity specificity
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!