Table 1.
Microvascular tree grading and scoring.
Fig 1.
Measurements of microvascular flow (MV-flow) imaging for (a) Grade 0, (b) Grade 1, (c) Grade 2, (d) Grade 3, and (e) Grade 4.
Table 2.
Patients’ characteristics.
Fig 2.
Interobserver agreement of microvascular flow (MV-flow) imaging for (a) scoring system and (b) percentage value.
Table 3.
Correlation analysis between non-invasive values.
Table 4.
Diagnostic accuracy and optimal cutoff values of non-invasive value for the diagnosis of liver fibrosis.
Fig 3.
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of noninvasive tools for the diagnosis of (a) significant fibrosis (stage 2), (b) advanced fibrosis (stage 3), and (c) cirrhosis (stage 4).
Table 5.
Comparison of diagnostic performance between non-invasive values.
Fig 4.
Accuracy of combination of microvascular scoring system with liver stiffness (LS) by 2D-SWE for predicting advanced fibrosis. (a) paired combination (b) sequential combination. CLD, Chronic liver disease; MV-flow, microvascular flow; 2D-SWE, 2-dimensional shear wave elastography.