Briefly, whatever the potential influencing factor, a decrease in LSE reliability, according to our new criteria, was associated with a decrease in LSE accuracy. Body mass index (<25 versus ≥25 kg/m2) did not influence LSE accuracy in any of the three new categories of LSE reliability (details not shown). Because of the few numbers of patients with hepatitis B, alcohol abuse, or

NAFLD, it was not possible to perform a sensitivity analysis for these causes of chronic liver disease. There is currently a critical need in clinical practice and in clinical research to precisely define the reliability criteria of LSE. Indeed, Fibroscan is now widely used and physicians have to daily Selleckchem INCB024360 determine whether LSEs are reliable and permit a more accurate diagnosis. Moreover, in clinical research the reliability criteria of LSEs directly influence the results of studies because unreliable LSEs are usually excluded from statistical analyses. To our knowledge, the present study is the first to evaluate the relevance of the usual definition for LSE reliability. The strengths of our work include the large number of included patients, the high rate of reliable liver biopsy (92.0%), and a thorough analysis of accuracy including either global indexes of performance such as AUROC, or useful indexes

for daily clinical practice such as the rate of well-classified patients. Our results clearly show that LSE considered as reliable according to the usual definition have higher diagnostic accuracy than unreliable LSE, but this difference is slight find more and not statistically significant (Table 2). The usual definition for LSE reliability, including the number

of valid measurements, LSE success rate, and IQR/M, is thus not relevant for clinical 上海皓元医药股份有限公司 practice or clinical research. Multivariate analyses showed that liver fibrosis staging was independently linked to IQR/M, with no influence of the number of LSE valid measurements or LSE success rate (Table 3). These results confirm the key role of IQR/M, as suggested in the Lucidarme et al. and Myers et al. studies.5, 6 However, these two studies were based on a discrepancy analysis between FM stages by liver biopsy and FFS stages (defined by LSE median categorized into equivalent Metavir fibrosis stages). IQR/M cutoffs were thus calculated to predict the discrepancy, but they failed to delineate subgroups of LSE where accuracies for liver fibrosis diagnosis were significantly different. In the present study, we used diagnosis of fibrosis stages as the main outcome. This allowed us to determine the thresholds of IQR/M that define subgroups of LSE with significantly different diagnostic accuracies, and thus the precise reliability criteria for LSE. LSE with IQR/M ≤0.10 (i.e., with minimal signal variability) provided significantly higher AUROCs, a higher rate of well-classified patients for the diagnosis of cirrhosis, and a higher rate of well-classified patients by LSE classification (Table 4). LSE with IQR/M ≤0.