Child-Pugh and MELD scores have been widely used for the assessment of prognosis in liver cirrhosis. A systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the discriminative ability of Child-Pugh versus MELD score to assess the prognosis of cirrhotic patients.PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched. The statistical results were summarized from every individual study. The summary areas under receiver operating characteristic curves, sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios were also calculated.Of the 1095 papers initially identified, 119 were eligible for the systematic review. Study population was heterogeneous among studies. They included 269 comparisons, of which 44 favored MELD score, 16 favored Child-Pugh score, 99 did not find any significant difference between them, and 110 did not report the statistical significance. Forty-two papers were further included in the meta-analysis. In patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure, Child-Pugh score had a higher sensitivity and a lower specificity than MELD score. In patients admitted to ICU, MELD score had a smaller negative likelihood ratio and a higher sensitivity than Child-Pugh score. In patients undergoing surgery, Child-Pugh score had a higher specificity than MELD score. In other subgroup analyses, Child-Pugh and MELD scores had statistically similar discriminative abilities or could not be compared due to the presence of significant diagnostic threshold effects.Although Child-Pugh and MELD scores had similar prognostic values in most of cases, their benefits might be heterogeneous in some specific conditions. The indications for Child-Pugh and MELD scores should be further identified.

Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio for the prognostic assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio (APRI), aspartate aminotransferase-to-alanine aminotransferase ratio (AAR), FIB-4, FI, King, Lok, Forns, and FibroIndex scores may be simple and convenient noninvasive diagnostic tests, because they are based on the regular laboratory tests and demographic data. This study aimed to systematically evaluate their diagnostic accuracy for the prediction of varices in liver cirrhosis. All relevant papers were searched via PubMed, EMBASE, CNKI, and Wanfang databases. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUSROC), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio (PLR and NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated. Overall, 12, 4, 5, 0, 0, 4, 3, and 1 paper was identified to explore the diagnostic accuracy of APRI, AAR, FIB-4, FI, King, Lok, Forns, and FibroIndex scores, respectively. The AUSROCs of APRI, AAR, FIB-4, Lok, and Forns scores for the prediction of varices were 0.6774, 0.7275, 0.7755, 0.7885, and 0.7517, respectively; and those for the prediction of large varices were 0.7278, 0.7448, 0.7095, 0.7264, and 0.6530, respectively. The diagnostic threshold effects of FIB-4 and Forns scores for the prediction of varices were statistically significant. The sensitivities/specificities/PLRs/NLRs/DORs of APRI, AAR, and Lok scores for the prediction of varices were 0.60/0.67/1.77/0.58/3.13, 0.64/0.63/1.97/0.54/4.18, and 0.74/0.68/2.34/0.40/5.76, respectively. The sensitivities/specificities/PLRs/NLRs/DORs of APRI, AAR, FIB-4, Lok, and Forns scores for the prediction of large varices were 0.65/0.66/2.15/0.47/4.97, 0.68/0.58/2.07/0.54/3.93, 0.62/0.64/2.02/0.56/3.57, 0.78/0.63/2.09/0.37/5.55, and 0.65/0.61/1.62/0.59/2.75, respectively. APRI, AAR, FIB-4, Lok, and Forns scores had low to moderate diagnostic accuracy in predicting the presence of varices in liver cirrhosis.