ArticleAlimentary pharmacology & therapeutics2025
Successful Amendment of an Existing Hepatitis B Screening Programme by a Guideline Recommended Hepatitis D Screening in the Primary Care Setting.
Article in Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Diagnosis to Durability: A Review of the European Bulevirtide Experience and Practical Learnings for CHD Management.Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver · 2026Review
- Generating hepatitis B and D monitoring indicators in Germany using claims data: number of persons tested, incident and prevalent infections, 2016-2021.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Nationwide Implementation of Double Reflex Testing for Hepatitis Delta in Spain: Results From the Retrospective Phase of the Spain-DDR Study.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite European guidelines recommending anti-hepatitis D virus (HDV) screening for all hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-positive cases, screening rates remain insufficient.
aimsWe analysed anti-HDV screening rates in primary care and implemented prospective HDV screening in HBsAg-positive cases identified in the preventive medical examination from the age of 35 ("Check-Up 35+").
methodsFrom 2012 to 2021, we reviewed anti-HDV and HDV RNA test rates in HBsAg-positive patients at 11 sites of a large German laboratory group. From 2022 to 2023, we prospectively screened HBsAg-positive samples from the "Check-Up 35+" for anti-HDV. Anti-HDV positive patients were then contacted again for HDV RNA testing.
resultsRetrospectively, 2792/13,905 (20%) HBsAg-positive cases were tested for anti-HDV, with 142/2792 (5.1%) being positive. HDV RNA was tested in 57/142 (40%) anti-HDV-positive cases, with 26/57 (46%) being positive. In the prospective screening, 1159/225,901 (0.51%) individuals were HBsAg-positive. Of these, 700 (60%) were tested for anti-HDV, with 18/700 (2.6%) positive test results. 4/18 (22%) were successfully contacted again for HDV RNA analysis, with one case testing positive. Neither the HBsAg nor the anti-HDV positive result was known prior to screening in these cases. Anti-HDV testing could not be performed in 459/1159 (40%) HBsAg-positive cases, primarily due to insufficient blood sample volume (310/459 cases, 68%), with others missed due to logistical errors.
conclusionsRetrospective data show insufficient anti-HDV screening in clinical routine. The prospective anti-HDV screening provides a blueprint for using existing hepatitis B virus screening programms for population-based HDV double reflex testing, provided that adequate logistical prerequisites are established.
trial registrationGerman Clinical Trial Register: DRKS00029180.
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.