Volume 128, Issue 2, Pages 343-350 (February 2005) Prospective comparison of transient elastography, Fibrotest, APRI, and liver biopsy for the assessment of fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C  Laurent Castéra, Julien Vergniol, Juliette Foucher, Brigitte Le Bail, Elise Chanteloup, Maud Haaser, Monique Darriet, Patrice Couzigou, Victor de Lédinghen  Gastroenterology  Volume 128, Issue 2, Pages 343-350 (February 2005) DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2004.11.018 Copyright © 2005 American Gastroenterological Association Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Box plots of (A) FS, (B) FT, and (C) APRI values for each fibrosis stage. Because of the wide range of FS values for F4, the vertical axis is in logarithmic scale. The top and bottom of the boxes are the first and third quartiles, respectively. The length of the box thus represents the interquartile range within which 50% of the values were located. The line through the middle of each box represents the median. The error bars show the minimum and maximum values (range). Gastroenterology 2005 128, 343-350DOI: (10.1053/j.gastro.2004.11.018) Copyright © 2005 American Gastroenterological Association Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 ROC curves for FS, FT, and APRI, and the combination of FS and FT, for different fibrosis thresholds: (A) F0–F1 vs. F2–F4 (F ≥ 2), (B) F0–F2 vs. F3–F4 (F ≥ 3), and (C) F0–F3 vs. F4 (F = 4). Gastroenterology 2005 128, 343-350DOI: (10.1053/j.gastro.2004.11.018) Copyright © 2005 American Gastroenterological Association Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Agreement between FS, FT, and their combination with LB examination for the diagnosis of significant fibrosis (A) (F ≥ 2), (B) (F ≥ 3), and (C) cirrhosis (F = 4). Results were compared between pooled F0 and F1 patients and pooled F2–F4 patients for F ≥ 2, pooled F0–F2 patients and pooled F3 and F4 patients for F ≥ 3, and cirrhotic patients (F4) vs. pooled F0–F3 patients for F = 4. Gastroenterology 2005 128, 343-350DOI: (10.1053/j.gastro.2004.11.018) Copyright © 2005 American Gastroenterological Association Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 Proposed algorithm for patient management according to FS and FT results. Gastroenterology 2005 128, 343-350DOI: (10.1053/j.gastro.2004.11.018) Copyright © 2005 American Gastroenterological Association Terms and Conditions