ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental hepatology
Outcomes in Clinical Trials Evaluating Interventions for the Prevention and Treatment of Hepatic Encephalopathy.
Review in Journal of clinical and experimental hepatology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiovascular, Kidney, Liver, and Metabolic Interactions in Heart Failure: Breaking Down Silos.Circulation research · 2025Review
- A Prospective Multimodal Education Intervention for Providers Does Not Increase Hepatic Encephalopathy Treatment Rates.Digestive diseases and 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Randomised clinical trials and systematic reviews of research findings can provide high-quality evidence for decision-making in the management of patients with hepatic encephalopathy. A large number of clinical trials have been undertaken, over the last 50 years, relative to the prevention and treatment of this condition. However, changes have been made, during this time, in the classification of hepatic encephalopathy, diagnostic criteria and assessment measures. These temporally based changes and the consequent lack of standardisation make it difficult to compare interventions and to evaluate their comparative efficacy and safety. While some consensus has been reached in relation to the diagnostic evaluation, classification and monitoring of patients in clinical trials, there is less surety about the choice of clinical endpoints. These outcome measures should be universally applicable, easily measured and clinically relevant. This article reviews the current recommendations regarding outcome selection and outlines some of the potential problems and pitfalls inherent in clinical trial evaluating interventions for the management of hepatic encephalopathy.
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.