MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4409652945 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd015536.pub2

Entecavir for children and adults with chronic hepatitis B

2025· review· en· W4409652945 sur OpenAlexaff
Jing Wu, Shitong Xie, Yanfang Ma, Xiaoning He, Xinyue Dong, Qianling Shi, Qi Wang, Meixuan Li, Naijuan Yao, Liang Yao

Notice bibliographique

RevueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2025
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHepatitis B Virus Studies
Établissements canadiensMcMaster UniversityImpact
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésEntecavirChronic hepatitisVirologyMedicineHepatitis BEnvironmental healthPediatricsVirus

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

RATIONALE: Chronic hepatitis B is a major worldwide public health concern. Entecavir, one nucleos(t)ide analogue antiviral therapy option, is recommended as the first-line drug for chronic hepatitis B in many clinical guidelines. However, none of the guideline recommendations are based on the findings of a systematic review with meta-analysis, where entecavir versus no treatment or placebo are compared directly. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of entecavir versus no treatment or placebo in children and adults with chronic hepatitis B, who are either hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg)-positive or HBeAg-negative. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, three other databases, online trial registries, and reference lists, and contacted authors. The latest search was on 19 July 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials comparing entecavir versus no treatment or placebo in children or adults, or both, with chronic hepatitis B, and irrespective of treatment history with other antiviral drugs and other viral co-infections. We allowed co-interventions when administered equally to all intervention groups. OUTCOMES: The outcomes reported in this abstract and in the summary of findings table are all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life, and proportion of people with serious adverse events at the longest follow-up. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias in the included trials. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We used a random-effects model to meta-analyse outcome results, where possible, and presented the results as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Where there was considerable heterogeneity, we performed a narrative analysis. We used a fixed-effect model for sensitivity analysis. We used GRADE to evaluate the certainty of evidence. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 22 randomised clinical trials (published from 2005 to 2022) with 2940 participants diagnosed with chronic hepatitis B. All trials had a parallel-group design. The experimental intervention was oral entecavir, with a follow-up duration of 5 weeks to 228 weeks. The comparator in 12 trials was no treatment, and in 10 trials was placebo. Fourteen trials equally administered co-interventions to the trial participants in the entecavir and no treatment and placebo groups. One trial included participants between 14 years and 55 years of age, one trial included only children, 19 trials included only adults, and one trial did not provide the age of participants. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Twenty trials contributed data to the quantitative analysis. Ten trials (1379 participants) reported all-cause mortality with a mean follow-up duration of 48.9 weeks (range 5 to 100 weeks). The result was not estimable because no deaths occurred in any of the entecavir and no treatment or placebo groups. None of the trials provided data on health-related quality of life. We are very uncertain about the effect of entecavir versus no treatment or placebo on the proportion of people with serious adverse events (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.32; absolute risk difference 22 fewer per 1000 (from 44 fewer to 21 more); 15 trials, 1676 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The mean follow-up duration was 58.4 weeks (range 5 weeks to 228 weeks). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for these outcomes to very low, mainly because the overall risk of bias in most trials was with some concerns or high, and serious imprecision (no events or few events). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the issues of risk of bias and insufficient power of the included trials and the very low certainty of the available evidence, we could not determine the effect of entecavir versus no treatment or placebo on critical outcomes such as all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. There is a lack of data on health-related quality of life. Given the first-line recommendation and wide usage of entecavir in people with chronic hepatitis B, further evidence on clinically important outcomes, analysed in this review, is needed. FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Registration: Entecavir for children and adults with chronic hepatitis B, CD015536 via DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD015536.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,011
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,018
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,059

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0110,033
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0050,004
Bibliométrie0,0040,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0180,001

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,049
Tête enseignante GPT0,358
Écart entre enseignants0,310 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsMême sujetHepatitis B Virus StudiesTravaux en français237 207