Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33317253›Full record

ArticleClinical and molecular hepatology2021

Scaling up the in-hospital hepatitis C virus care cascade in Taiwan.

Chung-Feng Huang, Pey-Fang Wu, Ming-Lun Yeh, Ching-I Huang, Po-Cheng Liang, Cheng-Ting Hsu, Po-Yao Hsu, Hung-Yin Liu, Ying-Chou Huang, Zu-Yau Lin and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and molecular hepatology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Optimizing diagnostic algorithms to advance Hepatitis C elimination in Italy: A cost effectiveness evaluation.Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver · 2022
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Chung-Feng HuangHepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Pey-Fang WuHepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Ming-Lun YehHepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Ching-I HuangHepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Po-Cheng LiangHepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Cheng-Ting HsuHepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Po-Yao HsuHepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Hung-Yin LiuHepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Ying-Chou HuangHepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Zu-Yau LinHepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Shinn-Cherng ChenHepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Jee-Fu HuangHepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Chia-Yen DaiHepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Wan-Long ChuangHepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Ming-Lung YuHepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsObstacles exist in facilitating hepatitis C virus (HCV) care cascade. To increase timely and accurate diagnosis, disease awareness and accessibility, in-hospital HCV reflex testing followed by automatic appointments and a late call-back strategy (R.N.A. model) was applied. We aimed to compare the HCV treatment rate of patients treated with this strategy compared to those without.

methodsOne hundred and twenty-five anti-HCV seropositive patients who adopted the R.N.A. model in 2020 and another 1,396 controls treated in 2019 were enrolled to compare the gaps in accurate HCV RNA diagnosis to final treatment allocation.

resultsThe HCV RNA testing rate was significantly higher in patients who received reflex testing than in those without reflex testing (100% vs. 84.8%, P<0.001). When patients were stratified according to the referring outpatient department, a significant improvement in the HCV RNA testing rate was particularly noted in patients from non-hepatology departments (100% vs. 23.3%, P<0.001). The treatment rate in HCV RNA seropositive patients was 83% (83/100) after the adoption of the R.N.A. model, among whom 96.1% and 73.9% of patients were from the hepatology and non-hepatology departments, respectively. Compared to subjects without R.N.A. model application, a significant improvement in the treatment rate was observed for patients from non-hepatology departments (73.9% vs. 27.8%, P=0.001). The application of the R.N.A. model significantly increased the in-hospital HCV treatment uptake from 6.4% to 73.9% for patients from non-hepatology departments (P<0.001).

conclusionThe care cascade increased the treatment uptake and set up a model for enhancing in-hospital HCV elimination.

Indexed as

Hepatitis CAdultAgedAntiviral AgentsFemaleHepacivirusHospitalsHumansMaleMiddle AgedTaiwanAntiviral AgentsCare cascadeEliminationHCVReflex testing

Identifiers

PMID33317253
PMCPMC7820217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.