Definition and research guide
This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.
Content available: 3 complete abstracts (893 words), 9 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.
Definition
Liver disease in which the normal microcirculation, the gross vascular anatomy, and the hepatic architecture have been variably destroyed and altered with fibrous septa surrounding regenerated or regenerating parenchymal nodules.
Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.
Also known as: Hepatic Cirrhosis; Cirrhosis, Hepatic; Cirrhosis, Liver; Fibrosis, Liver; Liver Fibrosis.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
- Broader topics
- Liver Diseases; Fibrosis
- Narrower topics
- Liver Cirrhosis, Alcoholic; Liver Cirrhosis, Biliary; Liver Cirrhosis, Experimental
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 113,576 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Liver Cirrhosis” (counts retrieved 2026-11-04). 24,175 of them (21.3%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is through 1999 with 44,214 records.
Reviews account for 13,918 records (12.3%) and meta-analyses for 1,176. Randomized controlled trials number 2,439 (2.1%) as a share of all records on the topic.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 44,214 |
| 2000-2009 | 17,419 |
| 2010-2019 | 27,768 |
| 2020 onward | 24,175 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 13,918 | 12.3% |
| Meta-analyses | 1,176 | 1.0% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 2,439 | 2.1% |
Method: PubMed query "Liver Cirrhosis"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-11-04.
Reading the evidence in digestive system and liver
Gut and liver research ranges from laboratory studies of the microbiome to large trials of drugs and surgery. Symptoms such as pain, reflux or bowel change are reported by patients and overlap between conditions, and diet and microbiome studies are mostly observational. Check whether the study measured symptoms, tissue findings or long-term outcomes, how the diagnosis was made and how long people were followed. Nothing here replaces advice from a qualified clinician.
Evidence from open-access studies
These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.
| Study / authors | Year | Source label / design | Europe PMC citations | Licence / source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prospective validation of imaging and serum diagnostic biomarkers of steatohepatitis and fibrosis in MASLD: the LITMUS Imaging Study | 2026 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 6 | cc by PMID 42498741 · DOI · PMC13472969 |
| Metabolic drivers of MASLD and MASH: from hormonal imbalance to fibrosis | 2026 | Review article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 3 | cc by PMID 42322377 · DOI · PMC13627226 |
| Laparoscopic or Open Liver Resection Versus Multibipolar Radiofrequency Ablation of HCC Within Milan Criteria on Cirrhosis | 2026 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 3 | cc by PMID 42478167 · DOI · PMC13386131 |
Prospective validation of imaging and serum diagnostic biomarkers of steatohepatitis and fibrosis in MASLD: the LITMUS Imaging Study [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- There is a need for robust evaluations of noninvasive biomarkers for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease.
- Closing excerpt
- Serum biomarkers tended to outperform imaging for identifying at-risk MASH, whereas elastography and composite scores showed excellent accuracy for staging advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (272 words)
There is a need for robust evaluations of noninvasive biomarkers for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease. This prospective multicenter study assessed the diagnostic accuracy of imaging (including liver stiffness measurement (LSM) using magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) and FibroScan (vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE)), serum biomarkers (including NIS2+) and composite scores (including Agile 3+ and Agile 4) for centrally read steatohepatitis and fibrosis. For cirrhosis, several biomarkers exceeded the minimum acceptable performance criterion (MAC), including MRE (area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) 0.91; P < 0.01), VCTE-LSM (AUC 0.87; P < 0.01), Agile 3+ (AUC 0.89; P < 0.01) and Agile 4 (AUC 0.88; P < 0.01). Among 357 participants, fibrosis stages F0-F4 were present in 12%, 16%, 25%, 32% and 15%, respectively. NIS2+ had the highest diagnostic accuracy among serum biomarkers for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH; AUC 0.83) and at-risk MASH (MASH with at least stage 2 fibrosis; AUC 0.82), although neither significantly exceeded the MAC (P = 0.15 and P = 0.19). Among imaging biomarkers, MRE showed the highest performance for MASH (AUC 0.71) and at-risk MASH (AUC 0.75), but these remained below the MAC. For fibrosis staging, performance was stronger: MRE met the MAC for advanced fibrosis (AUC 0.91; P < 0.01), as did Agile 3+ (AUC 0.84; P = 0.03). For cirrhosis, several biomarkers exceeded the MAC, including MRE (AUC 0.91; P < 0.01), VCTE-LSM (AUC 0.87; P < 0.01), Agile 3+ (AUC 0.89; P < 0.01) and Agile 4 (AUC 0.88; P < 0.01). Serum biomarkers tended to outperform imaging for identifying at-risk MASH, whereas elastography and composite scores showed excellent accuracy for staging advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42498741 · DOI · PMC13472969
Metabolic drivers of MASLD and MASH: from hormonal imbalance to fibrosis [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) and its more severe and aggressive form, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH), represent liver-specific consequences of systemic metabolic dysfunction.
- Closing excerpt
- Understanding these interconnected mechanisms of disease progression is essential for identifying therapeutic targets and advancing mechanism-based and precision medicine approaches for MASLD and MASH.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (252 words)
Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) and its more severe and aggressive form, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH), represent liver-specific consequences of systemic metabolic dysfunction. This review synthesises current evidence on the metabolic and hormonal determinants of MASLD progression, with a particular focus on the mechanisms linking systemic dysfunction across multiple tissues to hepatic inflammation and fibrosis. MASLD pathogenesis is driven by complex interactions between insulin resistance, impaired glucose metabolism, dysfunctional adipose tissue lipolysis and altered hepatic de novo lipogenesis. Central to this process is the dysregulation of key metabolic hormones, including insulin and glucagon, whose imbalance disrupts both glucose and lipid fluxes, leading not only to hepatic steatosis but also to altered hepatic glucose handling, increased substrate delivery and reduced metabolic flexibility. This promotes lipid accumulation as well as glucotoxic and lipotoxic stress. These metabolic disturbances trigger hepatocellular injury and activate inflammatory signalling pathways, including adipokine-mediated crosstalk between adipose tissue and the liver, promoting hepatic stellate cell activation and ultimately leading to a state of chronic low-grade inflammation (metaflammation) that integrates hepatocyte stress, immune cell activation and hepatic stellate cell-driven fibrogenesis. This review also highlights sex-specific hormonal regulation and the gut-liver-adipose axis as determinants of disease heterogeneity and immunometabolic injury. By integrating mechanistic insights across glucose and lipid metabolism, tissues and hormonal pathways, this review underscores how systemic metabolic dysfunction is translated into progressive liver injury and fibrosis. Understanding these interconnected mechanisms of disease progression is essential for identifying therapeutic targets and advancing mechanism-based and precision medicine approaches for MASLD and MASH.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42322377 · DOI · PMC13627226
Laparoscopic or Open Liver Resection Versus Multibipolar Radiofrequency Ablation of HCC Within Milan Criteria on Cirrhosis [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Background & aimsWe compared multibipolar radiofrequency ablation (mbpRFA) with open liver resection (OLR) or laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in patients with HCCs within Milan.
- Closing excerpt
- LLR maximizes oncological outcomes, but mbpRFA maintains optimal TFS with less morbidity.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (369 words)
Background & aimsWe compared multibipolar radiofrequency ablation (mbpRFA) with open liver resection (OLR) or laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in patients with HCCs within Milan.MethodsThis multicenter cohort study included patients treated by mbpRFA, OLR or LLR for HCC within the Milan Criteria, developed on advanced fibrosis in nine French centres between 2008 and 2018. Adjustments on HCC size/number, gender, age, ASA, HCV, HBV, metabolic syndrome, chronic alcohol intake, MELD score, serum AFP level, APRI score, cirrhosis, significant portal hypertension and HCC localization were performed using multivariable regressions with centre-robust variance and propensity score-based matching (3:1 nearest-neighbour with calliper Results1040 patients were included (median age: 64 years; male 82.9%), with 606, 266 and 168 treated by mbpRFA, LLR and OLR. Most HCCs were solitary (84.8%) and on cirrhosis (89.2%). In months, the follow-up was 50.2 (95% CI: 45.3, 54.3), 43.3 (95% CI: 40.0, 48.6) and 47.4 (95% CI: 40.8, 58.7) for mbpRFA, LLR and OLR patients. After matching, OLR patients had similar overall survival (OS) (HR = 1.05 [CI 95% = 0.65, 1.69], p = 0.853), transplant-free survival (TFS) (HR = 0.91 [CI 95% = 0.56, 1.47]; p = 0.690) or recurrence-free survival (RFS) (HR = 0.99 [CI 95% = 0.69, 1.43]; p = 0.968) compared to mbpRFA patients but with more severe adverse events (RR = 2.58 [CI 95% = 1.16, 5.71]; p = 0.02) and mortality (RR = 4.51 [CI 95% = 1.16, 17.59]; p = 0.03). After matching, LLR patients had better OS (HR = 0.57 [CI 95% = 0.38, 0.88], p = 0.01) but similar TFS (HR = 0.77 [CI 95% = 0.55, 1.1]; p = 0.152) and more severe adverse events (RR = 2.61 [CI 95% = 1.15, 5.96]; p = 0.022) compared to mbpRFA patients. LLR patients had a better RFS (HR = 0.7 [CI 95% = 0.53, 0.91]; p = 0.009) than mbpRFA patients. When distant-only recurrences were considered in the mbpRFA patients, there was no significant difference in RFS (p = 0.087). The LLR survival benefit was consistent across pre-specified subgroups, with no interaction surviving correction for multiple testing.ConclusionsMinimally invasive modalities (LLR or mbpRFA) should be prioritized when treating early HCC. LLR maximizes oncological outcomes, but mbpRFA maintains optimal TFS with less morbidity.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42478167 · DOI · PMC13386131
Key reviews and meta-analyses
The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.
- Research article Surveillance Imaging and Alpha Fetoprotein for Early Detection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Cirrhosis: A Meta-analysis [4]
- Research article Association Between Fibrosis Stage and Outcomes of Patients With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [5]
- Research article Comparison of laboratory tests, ultrasound, or magnetic resonance elastography to detect fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: A meta-analysis [6]
- Research article Effect of sarcopenia on survival in patients with cirrhosis: A meta-analysis [7]
- Research article Effects of Anticoagulants in Patients With Cirrhosis and Portal Vein Thrombosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis [8]
- Research article Use of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance in Patients With Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [9]
Full-text reviews on EvidenceLib
Open-access review articles about this topic, reproduced in full with authors, licence and references.
Liver Fibrosis and Risk of Incident Dementia in the General Population: Systematic Review With Meta‐Analysis
Mohamad Jamalinia, Fatemeh Zare, Amedeo Lonardo · Health Science Reports 2025 · CC BY 4.0
References
- Pavlides M, Vali Y, Mózes FE, Wonders K, Akhtar S, Hockings PD, et al.. Prospective validation of imaging and serum diagnostic biomarkers of steatohepatitis and fibrosis in MASLD: the LITMUS Imaging Study. . 2026. PMID 42498741 · DOI · PMC13472969
- Gastaldelli A, Scoditti E, Macedo MP. Metabolic drivers of MASLD and MASH: from hormonal imbalance to fibrosis. . 2026. PMID 42322377 · DOI · PMC13627226
- Hobeika C, Cauchy F, Rode A, Salamé E, Scatton O, Schwarz L, et al.. Laparoscopic or Open Liver Resection Versus Multibipolar Radiofrequency Ablation of HCC Within Milan Criteria on Cirrhosis. . 2026. PMID 42478167 · DOI · PMC13386131
- Tzartzeva K, Obi J, Rich NE, Parikh ND, Marrero JA, Yopp A, et al.. Surveillance Imaging and Alpha Fetoprotein for Early Detection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Cirrhosis: A Meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2018. PMID 29425931 · DOI · PMC5927818
- Taylor RS, Taylor RJ, Bayliss S, Hagström H, Nasr P, Schattenberg JM, et al.. Association Between Fibrosis Stage and Outcomes of Patients With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Gastroenterology. 2020. PMID 32027911 · DOI
- Xiao G, Zhu S, Xiao X, Yan L, Yang J, Wu G. Comparison of laboratory tests, ultrasound, or magnetic resonance elastography to detect fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: A meta-analysis. Hepatology. 2017. PMID 28586172 · DOI
- Tantai X, Liu Y, Yeo YH, Praktiknjo M, Mauro E, Hamaguchi Y, et al.. Effect of sarcopenia on survival in patients with cirrhosis: A meta-analysis. J Hepatol. 2022. PMID 34785325 · DOI
- Loffredo L, Pastori D, Farcomeni A, Violi F. Effects of Anticoagulants in Patients With Cirrhosis and Portal Vein Thrombosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2017. PMID 28479379 · DOI
- Wolf E, Rich NE, Marrero JA, Parikh ND, Singal AG. Use of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance in Patients With Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Hepatology. 2021. PMID 32383272 · DOI · PMC7648722
About this article
- Sources
- NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
- Verification
- Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-11-04; title, year and DOI matched.
- Review state
- automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
- Version
- 1, last updated 2026-11-04.
See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.
Evidence strength
EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.