ABSTRACT
Introduction: Red cell distribution width to platelet ratio (RPR) may be a useful marker for the evaluation of liver fibrosis in chronic liver disease (CLD). We sought to investigate its value in fibrosis-related outcomes in a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy.
Areas covered: We searched MEDLINE (1966–2019), Clinicaltrials.gov (2008–2019), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (1999–2019), Google Scholar (2004–2019) and WHO (International Clinical Trials Register Platform) databases using a structured algorithm. The articles were assessed by Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2). In over 1,800 patients for each outcome, pooled sensitivity and specificity for a) significant fibrosis, b) advanced fibrosis and c) cirrhosis were: a) 0.635 and 0.769 with an AUC of 0.747, b) 0.607 and 0.783 with an AUC of 0.773, c) 0.739 and 0.768 with an AUC of 0.818 respectively. Similar results were found for chronic hepatitis B in all outcomes. Subgroup analysis indicated a high specificity for advanced fibrosis detection in primary biliary cirrhosis. Sensitivity analysis did not alter the results.
Expert opinion: RPR is a good predictor of fibrosis, especially as severity of chronic liver disease progresses. Future research should elucidate its value in specific etiologies of chronic liver disease.
Article highlights
Red cell distribution width and platelet count both accompany chronic liver disease
The ratio of these indices (RPR) has been investigated as a non-invasive marker
The present meta-analysis estimates the value of RPR in fibrosis diagnosis
As severity progresses, RPR can discriminate more accurately whether fibrosis is present
Subgroup analysis demonstrated significant diagnostic accuracy for primary biliary cirrhosis
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Dr. Ioannis Bellos for providing advice on the assessment of heterogeneity between studies.
Declaration of interest
The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.
Reviewer disclosures
Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose
Supplementary material
Supplemental data for this article Can be accessed here.