ArticleWorld journal of hepatology2024
Is there a need for universal double reflex testing of HBsAg-positive individuals for hepatitis D infection?
Article in World journal of hepatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of self-reported prevalence, vaccination status, knowledge and behavioral determinants of hepatitis B and D in Pakistan: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Screening tests for hepatitis B, C and D in metropolitan France from 2016 to 2022: a map based on the National Health Data System with a focus on HDV hepatitis.BMC public health · 2025Article
- The Management of Chronic Hepatitis B: 2025 Guidelines Update from the Canadian Association for the Study of the Liver and Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada.Canadian liver journal · 2025Article
- A US-Based Multi-Site Pilot to Screen Hepatitis B Surface Antigen-Positive Patients for Hepatitis D.Journal of viral hepatitis · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hepatitis D virus (HDV) can infect HBsAg-positive individuals, causing rapid fibrosis progression, early decompensation, increased hepatocellular carcinoma risk, and higher mortality than hepatitis B virus (HBV) mono-infection. Most countries lack high-quality HDV prevalence data, and the collection techniques employed often bias published data. In recent meta-analyses, HDV prevalence in HBsAg-positive patients reaches 5%-15% and is even significantly higher in endemic areas. Since HBV vaccination programs were implemented, HDV prevalence has decreased among younger populations. However, owing to immigrant influx, it has increased in some Western countries. The current practice of HDV screening in HBsAg-positive individuals is stepwise, based on physician's discretion, and limited to at-risk populations and may require numerous visits. Double reflex testing, which includes anti-HDV testing in all HBsAg-positive individuals and then HDV RNA testing for anti-HDV-positive ones, is uncommon. Reflex testing can identify more HDV infection cases and link identified patients to further care and follow-up. Moreover, laboratory-based double reflex screening is less biased than physician-led testing. Therefore, healthcare providers should learn about reflex testing, and federal and provincial hepatitis control programs should implement laboratory-based double reflex testing to obtain reliable HDV prevalence estimates. The test's cost-effectiveness depends on the number of HBV-positive patients screened to identify one HDV-positive patient. Such testing may be viable in areas with low HBsAg but high HDV prevalence. However, its economic impact on areas with low HDV prevalence needs further study.
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.