SynthesisAging2021
No difference in hepatocellular carcinoma risk in chronic hepatitis B patients treated with tenofovir vs entecavir: evidence from an updated meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Aging, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of tenofovir versus entecavir for preventing hepatocellular carcinoma in chronic hepatitis B patients: an umbrella review and meta-analysis.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The power of prevention: how tenofovir and entecavir are changing the game in hepatocellular carcinoma.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2023Article
- Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Whether tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is superior to entecavir in reducing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk among treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients remains controversial. We aimed to clarify this controversy. Several databases, including PubMed and Embase, were retrieved through November 2020. Cohort studies comparing the effectiveness of TDF and entecavir in reducing HCC incidence among treatment-naïve CHB patients were included if they reported multivariable-adjusted or propensity-score-matched risk estimates. A random-effects model was used to pool hazard ratios (HRs). Thirteen cohort studies, involving 4097 HCC cases and 80202 CHB patients, were included. Multivariable-adjusted meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in HCC incidence between TDF and entecavir groups (HR 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.72-1.04), which was consistent with propensity-score-matched meta-analysis (HR 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.66-1.03). Subgroup analysis showed that the observed similarity of TDF to entecavir for HCC prevention persisted in studies with follow-up length of ≥4 years but not in those with follow-up length of <4 years (
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.