ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2024
Clinical effectiveness of entecavir versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate tablets in chronic hepatitis B treatment.
Article in American journal of translational research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo analyze the clinical effectiveness of Entecavir (ETV) and Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate (TDF) Tablets for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB).
methodsClinical data from 100 CHB patients admitted to our hospital from April 2022 to April 2024 were retrospectively reviewed. Of these, 45 cases in the control group received ETV, and 55 cases in the research group received TDF tablets. Data on clinical effectiveness, safety (creatine kinase elevation, fatty liver, and lactic acidosis), hepatic function (total bilirubin [TBIL], alanine aminotransferase [ALT], and aspartate aminotransferase [AST]), viral markers (hepatitis B virus-deoxyribonucleic acid [HBV-DNA] and hepatitis B surface antigen [HBsAg]), and quality of life (the MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey [SF-36], assessing cognitive, physical, emotional, role, social functions) were comparatively analyzed.
resultsThe research group showed an evidently higher overall effective rate and a markedly lower incidence of total adverse reactions than the control group (all P<0.05). Additionally, statistically lower post-treatment TBIL, ALT, AST, HBV-DNA, and HBsAg levels and higher SF-36 scores across all five dimensions were observed in the research group (all P<0.05). Moreover, the research group showed markedly higher negative conversion rates of HBsAg after treatment compared to the control group (P<0.05).
conclusionTDF provides better clinical effects in the treatment of CHB than ETV and thus it is worthy of clinical promotion.
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.