XXXX in @entity3619 : an ultrasonographic study.

@entity1 @entity32 @entity1085 @entity82 @entity4609 @entity15773 @entity1575 @entity3619 @entity99
AIM: To select valuable ultrasonographic predictors for the evaluation of @entity99 and @entity82 degree in @entity3619 , and to study the value of ultrasonography in the evaluation of liver @entity82 and @entity1575 in comparison with serology and histology. METHODS: Forty-four ultrasonographic variables were analyzed and screened using color Doppler ultrasound system in 225 @entity1 with @entity3619 and @entity1575 . The valuable ultrasonographic predictors were selected on the basis of a comparison with histopathological findings. The value of ultrasonography and serology in the evaluation of liver @entity82 degree and the diagnosis of @entity1575 was also studied and compared. Meanwhile, the influencing factors on ultrasonographic diagnosis of @entity1575 were also analyzed. RESULTS: By statistical analysis, the maximum velocity of portal vein and the degree of @entity1085 wall smoothness were selected as the valuable predictors for the @entity32 grade (G), while liver surface, hepatic parenchymal echo pattern, and the wall thickness of @entity1085 were selected as the valuable predictors for the @entity82 stage (S). Three S-related independent ultrasonographyic predictors and three routine serum @entity82 markers ( @entity15773 , HPCIII and @entity4609 ) were used to discriminate variables for the comparison of ultrasonography with serology. The diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography in moderate @entity82 was higher than that of serology (P<0.01), while there were no significant differences in the general diagnostic accuracy of @entity82 as well as between mild and severe @entity82 (P<0.05). There were no significant differences between ultrasonography and serology in the diagnosis of @entity1575 . However, the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography was higher in inactive @entity1575 and lower in active @entity82 than that of serology (both P<0.05). False positive and false negative results where found when the diagnosis of @entity1575 was made by ultrasonography. CONCLUSION: There are different ultrasonographic predictors for the evaluation of @entity99 grade and @entity82 stage of @entity3619 . Both ultrasonography and serology have their own advantages and disadvantages in the evaluation of liver @entity82 and @entity1575 . Combined application of the two methods is hopeful to improve the diagnostic accuracy.
