GuidelineLiver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver2016
HCV Council--critical appraisal of data: recommendations for clinical practice in a rapidly evolving therapeutic landscape.
Guideline in Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- HCV Council--critical appraisal of data: recommendations for clinical practice in a rapidly evolving therapeutic landscape.Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver · 2016Guideline
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
aimsHCV Council 2014, like its predecessor HCV Council 2011, assembled leading clinicians and researchers in the field of hepatitis C to critically evaluate current data regarding best practices for managing patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV).
methodsClinical practice statements were developed that reflect the areas of potential controversy with high clinical impact. Faculty members were responsible for reviewing the literature to support or reject these statements. After a review and comprehensive discussion of the data, the HCV Council faculty voted on the nature of the evidence and the level of support for each statement.
resultsThe results of the detailed analysis with expert opinion are summarized in this article.
conclusionNumerous questions regarding optimal management of certain populations and clinical scenarios remain unanswered. The discussion in the article provides a summary of evidenced-based expert opinion that may help guide clinicians as additional information is developed.
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.