ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2017
Risk Factor Analysis Between Newly Screened and Established Hepatitis C in GI and Hepatology Clinics.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral studies show inconsistencies in the rate of hepatitis C virus (HCV) detection among baby boomers (born 1945-1965). We conducted a cross-sectional HCV screening followed by a case-controlled comparison of the newly screened population with established HCV subjects.
methodEnrollment was offered to subjects aged 40-75 at our gastroenterology and hepatology clinics. Demographic data and potential risk factors were obtained, and HCV antibody test was offered to those who had never been screened and compared with a group with established HCV. Logistic regression analysis and Fisher's exact test were performed.
resultsSix hundred and seventy-five patients were offered participation, of whom 128 declined while 50 consented to participate but did not perform the HCV antibody test. Of 497 enrolled subjects, 252 patients had HCV, while 245 subjects (188 patients among "baby boomer") underwent screening for HCV. There were more females (62.4 vs. 41.7%) and immigrants (34.7 vs. 22.2%) among the newly screened group. Among the screened population, five patients had HCV antibody (2.04%), and two of them had positive viral load (0.82%) of whom only one fell in the baby boomer category (0.53%). Compared to HCV group, screened group had significantly lower-risk factors, such as IV drug use (1.22 vs. 43.3%), intranasal cocaine use (14.3 vs. 49.6%), and blood transfusion (18.8 vs. 32.5%).
conclusionWe found a slightly lower but similar prevalence of HCV antibody when screening based on birth cohort as compared to larger baby boomer studies. Future studies evaluating addition of other screening strategies or possibly universal screening may be needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28913613What 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.