Data related to treatment optimisation for hepatitis C in the era of combination direct-acting antiviral therapy: systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This data archive contains the following 7 files relating to treatment optimisation for hepatitis C in the era of combination direct-acting antiviral therapy: - Supplementary figure 1: Thematic map exploring strategies for treatment optimisation. The duration, combination and/or dose of a treatment regimen is optimised for the individual receiving therapy. Abbreviations: RBV - ribavirin; DAA - direct-acting antiviral; IFN - interferon. - Supplementary figure 2: Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised controlled trials summary - review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study. Prepared using Cochrane Review Manager v5.3 (RevMan, RRID:SCR_003581). - Supplementary figure 3: Risk of bias graph - review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies. Prepared using Cochrane Review Manager v5.3 (RevMan, RRID:SCR_003581). - Prisma 2009 Checklist: Completed checklist providing page numbers in the associated manuscript for the location of each element of the Prisma 2009 checklist. - HCV Treatment Optimisation Stata .do file: This is the .do file used to process and analyse the data. The proprietary statistical software 'Stata' was used to create this file. - HCV Treatment Optimisation Meta-analysis Data Sheet: This is the data extracted from trials included in this meta-analysis. The file was imported into Stata for analysis using the included .do file.- Supplementary Tables 1-6.docx:This single Word document contains the following 6 tables: - Supplementary table 1: Summary of Ovid search strategy - Medline and Embase. Last conducted on 4th July 2019. - Supplementary table 2: Individual study characteristics. The factors used for stratification or personalisation, treatment strategy adopted, and resultant SVR rates (intention-to-treat and per protocol) are presented for each treatment arm. - Supplementary table 3: Meta-regression - ‘maintain SVR group’. Clinical and methodological variables were subject to univariable random effects meta-regression. Only those variables with p≤0·1 on univariable analysis were carried forward to the multivariable model. Significance of variables in multivariable model taken at p≤0·05 level. Upper (UCI) and lower (LCI) 95% confidence intervals are presented. - Supplementary table 4: Meta-regression - improve SVR group. Clinical and methodological variables were subject to univariable random effects meta-regression. There were no significant associations and therefore a multivariable model was not constructed. Upper (UCI) and lower (LCI) 95% confidence intervals are presented. - Supplementary table 5: Modified Newcastle Ottawa Scale for quality assessment of nonrandomised studies. In this modified scale, a study can be awarded a maximum of one star for each item within the Selection and Outcome categories. The comparability domain was removed to account for the non-comparative nature of included studies (unmodified version can be found at: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/nosgen.pdf). - Supplementary table 6: Ongoing randomised controlled trials that are evaluating stratified or personalised treatment strategies. The associated study is a systematic review and meta-analysis which explores the impact of treatment optimisation strategies, such as stratified medicine or personalised medicine, in our current era of direct-acting antiviral therapy, applied to the treatment of hepatitis C virus.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,021 | 0,193 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,022 | 0,035 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,242 | 0,016 |
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; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».