SynthesisMedicine2018
Entecavir-based combination therapies for chronic hepatitis B: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2018. 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.
- A comparison of the therapeutic efficacy of Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate and Entecavir in patients with chronic Hepatitis-B.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrently, there is no consensus on the efficacy and safety of the entecavir (ETV) monotherapy versus the ETV-based combination therapy for chronic hepatitis B.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was performed on the comparison of ETV-based combination therapy and monotherapy for chronical hepatitis B (CHB) patients in the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Libraries, and the Chinese BioMedical Literature Database. Both dichotomous and continuous variables were extracted, and pooled outcomes were expressed as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD).
resultsWe included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and cohorts involving Group A: nucleos(t)ide-naive patients (four RCTs, n = 719 patients), Group B: nucleos(t)ide-resistant patients (four cohorts, n = 196 patients), and Group C: entecavir-treated patients with undetectable hepatitis B virus DNA (two RCTs and two cohorts, n = 297). Group A. ETV monotherapy was better for rates of undetectable HBV DNA, while the rates of the HBV DNA levels at the end of treatment, HBeAg Loss, ALT normalization were similar between the two groups [MD, -0.85 (95% CI, -0.173-0.03); OR, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.24-3.56); OR, 1.31 (95% CI, 0.17-9.82)]; Group B. ETV monotherapy was better for rates of undetectable HBV DNA, while the rates of the HBV DNA levels at the end of treatment, HBeAg Loss, ALT normalization were similar; Group C. The ETV-based combination therapy was better for the rate of HBV DNA relapse.
conclusionBased on the current data, ETV-based combination therapy seemed to be no better than ETV monotherapy. Further studies are needed to verify this conclusion.
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.