Table 1.

Alternative (i.e., non-VCTE-based) methods for diagnosing cACLD and identifying cACLD patients with a low/high probability of CSPH. A multitude of additional methods is capable of diagnosing cACLD (i.e., F3/F4) with adequate accuracy, however, only broadly used blood-based NIT and elastography methods for which cut-offs for ruling-in/ruling-out (i.e., high sensitivity/negative predictive value and specificity/positive predictive value) CSPH are available are mentioned

Method	Proprietary name/manufacturer	Strength/limitations	Cut-offs
Diagnosis of cACLD
LSM by 2D-SWE	Aixplorer/Supersonic Imagine/HOLOGIC	Confounding factors are similar to those for VCTE provided in Chap. 1	Similar cut-offs as for VCTE
LSM by 2D-SWE	LOGIQ 2D Shear Wave Elastography/General Electric	Limited studies with liver biopsy as reference standard; Confounding factors are similar to those for VCTE provided in Chap. 1	> 9.3 kPa [237]
FIB‑4 score	Non-proprietary	No dedicated hard-/software; Lower diagnostic but similar prognostic performance vs. VCTE	≥ 1.75 [5]
ELF test	Siemens	Confounding factor provided in Chap. 1	≥ 9.8 [4, 238, 239]
Identification of cACLD patients with a low/high probability of CSPH
LSM by 2D-SWE	Aixplorer/Supersonic Imagine/HOLOGIC	Most well-studied elastography method besides VCTE; Majority of studies not restricted to cACLD; Confounding factors are similar to those for VCTE provided in Chap. 1	Similar cut-offs/decision rules as for VCTE
LSM by 2D-SWE	LOGIQ 2D Shear Wave Elastography/General Electric	Single study [240] with a small cACLD subgroup; Confounding factors are similar to those for VCTE provided in the Chap. 1	CSPH ruled-out: < 9 kPa; CSPH ruled-in: > 13 kPa
VITRO	Non-proprietary	No dedicated hard-/software; Confounding factors are provided in Chap. 1	CSPH ruled-out: < 1 [5]; CSPH ruled-in: > 2.5 [5]