ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2025
Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate: safe and effective option for managing high-viral-load chronic hepatitis B.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis retrospective study evaluated the therapeutic effects of entecavir (ETV) versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients with high viral loads.
methodsA total of 120 high-viral-load CHB patients were enrolled and assigned to two treatment groups: the ETV group (n = 56) and the TDF group (n = 64). Comparative assessments included hepatitis B virus deoxyribonucleic acid (HBV-DNA) levels, hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) seroconversion rates, alanine aminotransferase (ALT) normalization, clinical efficacy, safety, biological and virological responses, biochemical indicators, and treatment satisfaction.
resultsThe TDF group showed significantly higher HBV-DNA and HBeAg seroconversion rates, as well as ALT normalization, compared to the ETV group at both 24 and 48 weeks post-treatment (all P < 0.05). Additionally, the TDF group demonstrated better clinical efficacy (P < 0.05). While demonstrating no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions compared to the ETV group (P > 0.05). Significantly higher biological and virological response rates, as well as treatment satisfaction, were also observed in the TDF group (all P < 0.05). Furthermore, the TDF group exhibited superior efficacy for reducing abnormal biochemical markers (P < 0.05).
conclusionsThese findings suggest that TDF is more effective than ETV for treating high-viral-load CHB patients.
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.