ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015
Comparison of the efficacy of tenofovir monotherapy versus tenofovir-based combination therapy in adefovir-experienced chronic hepatitis B patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection remains a major public health problem worldwide. Tenofovir monotherapy or tenofovir-based combination therapy have achieved promising results in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B patients who failed adefovir therapy.
objectiveThe goal of this study was to assess the efficacy of tenofovir monotherapy compared with tenofovir-based combination therapy for treatment of adefovir-experienced chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients.
methodsrandomized and non-randomized control trials directly comparing tenofovir monotherapy and tenofovir-based combination therapy were searched in PUBMED, MEDLINE, EMBASE database up to April 30, 2015. The data were analyzed with Review Manager (v.5.3).
resultsSeven articles (total of 478 patients) met entry criteria. The results found that the rates of undetectable hepatitis B virus DNA levels (64.7% vs. 68.5%, P = 0.58 for 24 weeks; 71.4% vs. 71.7%, P = 0.76 for 48 weeks; 71.6% vs. 73.0%, P = 0.92 for 96 weeks), alanine aminotransferase (ALT) normalization (72.6% vs. 69.2%, P = 0.46 for 48 weeks; 72.8% vs. 75.0%, P = 0.74 for 96 weeks) and hepatitis Be antigen loss (5.0% vs. 0, P = 0.43 for 48 weeks; 16.5% vs. 12.5%, P = 0.43 for 96 weeks) were not significantly different between the TDF alone and the TDF-based group. Moreover, the rate of adverse reactions was also not significantly different between the 2 groups (P = 0.06 for 96 weeks).
conclusionsTDF monotherapy and TDF-based combination therapy are similarly effective and safe in adefovir-experienced CHB patients after 48 weeks and 96 weeks of antiviral therapy. Nevertheless, large scale randomized control trials should be carried out to elucidate the long-term outcome of TDF treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26884924PMC4723769W2283072266What 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.