Hepatitis B immunisation in persons not previously exposed to hepatitis B or with unknown exposure status
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The benefits and harms of hepatitis B vaccination in persons not previously exposed to hepatitis B infection or with unknown exposure status have not been established. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of hepatitis B vaccination in people not previously exposed to hepatitis B infection or with unknown exposure status. SEARCH STRATEGY: Trials were identified from The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS,Science Citation Index Expanded (last search, March 2007). Additionally, we contacted experts and vaccine manufacturers, and read through reference lists for eligible trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing hepatitis B vaccine versus placebo, no intervention, or another vaccine in persons not previously exposed to hepatitis B (HBsAg negative) or with unknown exposure status. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was hepatitis B infection (detecting HBsAg, HBeAg, HBV DNA, or anti-HBc). Secondary outcomes were lack of sero-protection, antibody titre, clinical complications, adverse events, lack of compliance, and cost-effectiveness. Dichotomous outcomes were reported as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI), using intention-to-treat analysis assuming an unfavourable event for missing data. Sensitivity analyses based on methodological quality (risk of bias), available data analysis, intention-to-treat analysis assuming a favourable event for missing data, best-case scenario, and worst-case scenario were conducted. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve trials were eligible. All had high risk of bias and reporting was inconsistent. Hepatitis B vaccine did not show a clear effect on the risk of developing HBsAg (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.03, 4 trials, 1230 participants) and anti-HBc (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.07; 4 trials, 1230 participants, random-effects) when data were analysed using intention-to-treat analysis assuming an unfavourable event for missing data. Analysis based on data of available participants showed reduced risk of developing HBsAg (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.44, 4 trials, 576 participants) and anti-HBc (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.76, 4 trials, 576 participants, random-effects). Intention-to-treat analysis assuming favourable outcome for missing data showed similar reduction in risk. Hepatitis B vaccination had an unclear effect on the risk of lacking protective antibody levels (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.27, 3 trials, 1210 participants, random-effects). Development of adverse events was sparsely reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people not previously exposed to hepatitis B, vaccination has unclear effect on the risk of developing infection, as compared to no vaccination. The risk of lacking protective antibody levels as well as serious and non-serious adverse events appear comparable among recipients and non-recipients of hepatitis B vaccine.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,016 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».