SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2011
Systematic review of the literature on comparative effectiveness of antiviral treatments for chronic hepatitis B infection.
Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hepatitis B virus management to prevent reactivation after chemotherapy: a review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2012Review
- Detection of mixed populations of wild-type and YMDD hepatitis B variants by pyrosequencing in acutely and chronically infected patients.BMC microbiology · 2012Article
- Hepatitis B--more treatments, more testing, not enough data.Journal of general internal medicine · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the comparative effectiveness of antiviral drugs in adults with chronic hepatitis B monoinfection for evidence-based decision-making.
methodsA systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) published in English. Results after interferon and nucleos(t)ides analog therapies were synthesized with random-effects meta-analyses and number needed to treat (NNT).
resultsDespite sustained improvements in selected biomarkers, no one drug regimen improved all intermediate outcomes. In 16 underpowered RCTs, drug treatments did not reduce mortality, liver cancer, or cirrhosis. Sustained HBV DNA clearance was achieved in one patient when two were treated with adefovir (NNT from 1 RCT=2 95%CI 1;2) or interferon alpha-2b (NNT from 2 RCTs=2 95%CI 2;4), 13 with lamivudine (NNT from 1 RCT=13 95%CI 7;1000), and 11 with peginterferon alpha-2a vs. lamivudine (NNT from 1 RCT=11 95%CI 7;25). Sustained HBeAg seroconversion was achieved in one patient when eight were treated with interferon alpha-2b (NNT from 2 RCTs=8 95%CI 5;33) or 10--with peginterferon alpha-2b vs. interferon alpha-2b (NNT from 1 RCT=10 95%CI 5;1000). Greater benefits and safety after entecavir vs. lamivudine or pegylated interferon alpha-2b vs. interferon alpha-2b require future investigation of clinical outcomes. Adverse events were common and more frequent after interferon. Treatment utilization for adverse effects is unknown.
conclusionsIndividual clinical decisions should rely on comparative effectiveness and absolute rates of intermediate outcomes and adverse events. Future research should clarify the relationship of intermediate and clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of drugs for evidence-based policy and clinical decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.