ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2024
Patient profiled data for treatment decision-making: valuable as an add-on to hepatitis C clinical guidelines?
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsSystematic reviews and medical guidelines are widely used in clinical practice. However, these are often not up-to-date and focussed on the average patient. We therefore aimed to evaluate a guideline add-on, TherapySelector (TS), which is based on monthly updated data of all available high-quality studies, classified in specific patient profiles.
methodsWe evaluated the TS for the treatment of hepatitis C (HCV) in an international cohort of patients treated with direct-acting antivirals between 2015 and 2020. The primary outcome was the number of patients receiving one of the two preferred treatment options of the HCV TS, based on the highest level of evidence, cure rate, absence of ribavirin-associated adverse effects, and treatment duration.
resultsWe enrolled 567 patients. The number of patients treated with one of the two preferred treatment options according to the HCV TS ranged between 27% (2015) and 60% (2020; p < 0.001). Most of the patients received a regimen with a longer treatment-duration (up to 34%) and/or addition of ribavirin (up to 14%). The effect on the expected cure-rate was minimal (1-6% higher) when the first preferred TherapySelector option was given compared to the actual treatment.
conclusionsMedical decision-making can be optimised by a guideline add-on; in HCV its use appears to minimise adverse effects and cost. The use of such an add-on might have a greater impact in diseases with suboptimal cure-rates, high costs or adverse effects, for which treatment options rely on specific patient characteristics.
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.