Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30762891›Full record

ArticleHepatology (Baltimore, Md.)2019

Reply.

Anna S Lok, William G Powderly

Abstract readLetterComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Anna S LokDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
William G PowderlyDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Washington University, St. Louis, MO.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We are disappointed that the Cochrane Group remains unconvinced that sustained virologic response (SVR) is a validated surrogate outcome and that direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs) have been demonstrated to improve clinical as well as patient-reported outcomes in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Since our commentary in 2017, there have been many more studies supporting the benefits of SVR and DAA therapies, including a decline in patients added to the waiting list for liver transplantation for hepatitis C. We recognize that randomized controlled trials are the gold standards for showing the benefits of new treatments but given the robust evidence from clinical trials and observational studies all over the world, we do not believe that it is ethical to contemplate withholding clinically proven beneficial therapy. We stand by our associations' recommendations that all patients with chronic hepatitis C should be treated. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Indexed as

Antiviral AgentsHepatitis CHepatitis C, ChronicHepacivirusHumansSustained Virologic ResponseAntiviral Agents

Identifiers

PMID30762891

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.