Sonographic gallbladder wall thickness measurement and the prediction of esophageal varices among cirrhotics

Table 2 Studies focusing gallbladder wall thickness measurement and the degree of esophageal varices

Ref.	Target patients	Number of patients	GBWT cut-off	Reported sensitivity	Conclusions
Yousaf et al[23]	Child B and C cirrhosis	103	4 mm	Not reported	GBWT most profound in the patients with smaller (F1) and moderate (f2) esophageal varices. Most of the patients with no varices had normal gall bladder wall
Begum et al[26]	CLDs	61			The mean GBWT was significantly (P < 0.05) higher in CLD patients with grade III and IV varices (6.1 ± 0.8 mm) compared to grade I and II (3.9 ± 0.7 mm).
Elkerdawy et al[24]	Post-hepatitis cirrhosis with portal hypertension	105	≥ 3.1 mm	54.29%	GBWT was associated not only with the presence of EVs, but also with advanced EVs. Although, the reported sensitivity of GBWT in prediction of EVs was low, its diagnostic accuracy was comparable and even superior to some simple non-invasive predictors
Afifi et al[14]	Cirrhosis (Child A, B and C)	100	≥ 3.950	92%	GBWT at cut-off level ≥ 3.950 had 92% sensitivity, 95% specificity, 86.7% PPV, and 97.1% NPV for detection of large-sized EVs, with AUC = 0.986

AUC: Area under the curve; CLD: Chronic liver disease; EVs: Esophageal varices; GBWT: Gallbladder wall thickness; NPV: Negative predictive value; PPV: Positive predictive value.