Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25987794›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2015

Models for predicting hepatitis B e antigen seroconversion in response to interferon-α in chronic hepatitis B patients.

Chang-Tai Wang, Ya-Fei Zhang, Bing-Hu Sun, Yu Dai, Hui-Lan Zhu, Yuan-Hong Xu, Meng-Ji Lu, Dong-Liang Yang, Xu Li, Zhen-Hua Zhang

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Study
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.

Chang-Tai WangChang-Tai Wang, Ya-Fei Zhang, Bing-Hu Sun, Yu Dai, Hui-Lan Zhu, Xu Li, Zhen-Hua Zhang, Department of Infectious Diseases, the First Affiliated Hospital, Anhui Medical University, Hefei 230022, Anhui Province, China.
Ya-Fei ZhangChang-Tai Wang, Ya-Fei Zhang, Bing-Hu Sun, Yu Dai, Hui-Lan Zhu, Xu Li, Zhen-Hua Zhang, Department of Infectious Diseases, the First Affiliated Hospital, Anhui Medical University, Hefei 230022, Anhui Province, China.
Bing-Hu SunChang-Tai Wang, Ya-Fei Zhang, Bing-Hu Sun, Yu Dai, Hui-Lan Zhu, Xu Li, Zhen-Hua Zhang, Department of Infectious Diseases, the First Affiliated Hospital, Anhui Medical University, Hefei 230022, Anhui Province, China.
Yu DaiChang-Tai Wang, Ya-Fei Zhang, Bing-Hu Sun, Yu Dai, Hui-Lan Zhu, Xu Li, Zhen-Hua Zhang, Department of Infectious Diseases, the First Affiliated Hospital, Anhui Medical University, Hefei 230022, Anhui Province, China.
Hui-Lan ZhuChang-Tai Wang, Ya-Fei Zhang, Bing-Hu Sun, Yu Dai, Hui-Lan Zhu, Xu Li, Zhen-Hua Zhang, Department of Infectious Diseases, the First Affiliated Hospital, Anhui Medical University, Hefei 230022, Anhui Province, China.
Yuan-Hong XuChang-Tai Wang, Ya-Fei Zhang, Bing-Hu Sun, Yu Dai, Hui-Lan Zhu, Xu Li, Zhen-Hua Zhang, Department of Infectious Diseases, the First Affiliated Hospital, Anhui Medical University, Hefei 230022, Anhui Province, China.
Meng-Ji LuChang-Tai Wang, Ya-Fei Zhang, Bing-Hu Sun, Yu Dai, Hui-Lan Zhu, Xu Li, Zhen-Hua Zhang, Department of Infectious Diseases, the First Affiliated Hospital, Anhui Medical University, Hefei 230022, Anhui Province, China.
Dong-Liang YangChang-Tai Wang, Ya-Fei Zhang, Bing-Hu Sun, Yu Dai, Hui-Lan Zhu, Xu Li, Zhen-Hua Zhang, Department of Infectious Diseases, the First Affiliated Hospital, Anhui Medical University, Hefei 230022, Anhui Province, China.
Xu LiChang-Tai Wang, Ya-Fei Zhang, Bing-Hu Sun, Yu Dai, Hui-Lan Zhu, Xu Li, Zhen-Hua Zhang, Department of Infectious Diseases, the First Affiliated Hospital, Anhui Medical University, Hefei 230022, Anhui Province, China.
Zhen-Hua ZhangChang-Tai Wang, Ya-Fei Zhang, Bing-Hu Sun, Yu Dai, Hui-Lan Zhu, Xu Li, Zhen-Hua Zhang, Department of Infectious Diseases, the First Affiliated Hospital, Anhui Medical University, Hefei 230022, Anhui Province, China.
Anhui Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo develop models to predict hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) seroconversion in response to interferon (IFN)-α treatment in chronic hepatitis B patients.

methodsWe enrolled 147 treatment-naïve HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B patients in China and analyzed variables after initiating IFN-α1b treatment. Patients were tested for serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT), hepatitis B virus-DNA, hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), antibody to hepatitis B surface antigen, HBeAg, antibody to hepatitis B e antigen (anti-HBe), and antibody to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc) at baseline and 12 wk, 24 wk, and 52 wk after initiating treatment. We performed univariate analysis to identify response predictors among the variables. Multivariate models to predict treatment response were constructed at baseline, 12 wk, and 24 wk.

resultsAt baseline, the 3 factors correlating most with HBeAg seroconversion were serum ALT level > 4 × the upper limit of normal (ULN), HBeAg ≤ 500 S/CO, and anti-HBc > 11.4 S/CO. At 12 wk, the 3 factors most associated with HBeAg seroconversion were HBeAg level ≤ 250 S/CO, decline in HBeAg > 1 log10 S/CO, and anti-HBc > 11.8 S/CO. At 24 wk, the 3 factors most associated with HBeAg seroconversion were HBeAg level ≤ 5 S/CO, anti-HBc > 11.4 S/CO, and decline in HBeAg > 2 log10 S/CO. Each variable was assigned a score of 1, a score of 0 was given if patients did not have any of the 3 variables. The 3 factors most strongly correlating with HBeAg seroconversion at each time point were used to build models to predict the outcome after IFN-α treatment. When the score was 3, the response rates at the 3 time points were 57.7%, 83.3%, and 84.0%, respectively. When the score was 0, the response rates were 2.9%, 0.0%, and 2.1%, respectively.

conclusionModels with good negative and positive predictive values were developed to calculate the probability of response to IFN-α therapy.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalSeroconversionAdultAntiviral AgentsBiomarkersChinaChi-Square DistributionDNA, ViralFemaleHepatitis B, ChronicHepatitis B e AntigensHepatitis B virusHepatitis C AntibodiesHumansInterferon-alphaLogistic ModelsAntiviral AgentsBiomarkersDNA, ViralHepatitis B e AntigensHepatitis C AntibodiesInterferon-alphaChronic hepatitis BHepatitis B e antigenInterferonModelTreatment

Identifiers

PMID25987794
PMCPMC4427693
OpenAlexW2339419346

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.