ReviewBMJ clinical evidence2015
Hepatitis C (chronic).
Review in BMJ clinical evidence, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- National hepatitis B and C estimates for 2021: Measuring Canada's progress towards eliminating viral hepatitis as a public health concern.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2025Article
- The Intrinsically Disordered Region of HBx and Virus-Host Interactions: Uncovering New Therapeutic Approaches for HBV and Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Epidemiology of Hepatitis C over 28 years of monitoring Canadian blood donors: Insight into a low-risk undiagnosed population.BMC public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAbout 60% to 85% of people infected with hepatitis C virus will go on to develop chronic hepatitis C, which is now believed to affect 3% of the world's population. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic overview and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interferon-free treatments in treatment-naïve people with chronic hepatitis C infection without cirrhosis? What are the effects of interferon-free treatments in treatment-naïve people with chronic hepatitis C infection with cirrhosis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to August 2014 (Clinical Evidence overviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review).
resultsAfter deduplication and removal of conference abstracts, 30 records were screened for inclusion in the review. Appraisal of titles and abstracts led to the exclusion of 11 studies and the further review of 19 full publications. Of the 19 full articles evaluated, two systematic reviews and one RCT were added. We performed a GRADE evaluation for two PICO combinations.
conclusionsIn this systematic overview, we categorised the efficacy for 12 different intervention/comparison combinations, based on information relating to the effectiveness and safety of sofosbuvir (with or without ribavirin), sofosbuvir (with or without ribavirin) plus ledipasvir, and sofosbuvir (with or without ribavirin) plus simeprevir, all in people with and without cirrhosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26107930PMC4479184W2469676702What 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.