ReviewJHEP reports : innovation in hepatology2025
Time for a globally unified chronic HBV terminology?
Review in JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Person-First or Disease-First? Language Choices in Cancer Communication.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The terminology used to describe chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection remains inconsistent and fragmented across liver societies, clinical settings, and research domains. This lack of alignment poses barriers to care, complicates clinical trial design, and can generate confusion among providers, people living with hepatitis B, and researchers. This article examines the impact of discordant CHB infection terminology on care delivery and research, highlighting specific challenges with commonly used terms, such as "immune tolerant," "indeterminate" or "grey zone", as well as with terms used for hepatitis B surface antigen loss, including "resolved infection", "occult infection" or "functional cure." Although recent guidelines have moved towards simplification, global uniformity remains lacking, particularly regarding definitions of disease phases and thresholds for initiating treatment. We call for alignment of terminology to improve care, increase treatment uptake, enhance patient engagement, and accelerate HBV research and elimination efforts. We propose a multistakeholder consensus process to create a unified and practical nomenclature that distinguishes between terminology for clinical care and terminology for research and drug development. We also call for intentional inclusion of people with lived experience in this process to ensure the language used is meaningful, empowering, and stigma-free. With the HBV field on the cusp of transformative therapies and simplified treatment algorithms, now is the time to harmonise the language we use. A globally unified chronic HBV infection terminology stands to enhance access to care, improve comparability of research data, and strengthen collaboration across the HBV community - all of which are critical to accelerating progress towards hepatitis B elimination.
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.