SynthesisJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2025
Comparison of tenofovir versus entecavir for preventing hepatocellular carcinoma in chronic hepatitis B patients: an umbrella review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Entecavir versus Tenofovir Amibufenamide in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Article
- Understanding Liver and Digestive Diseases: A Paved Road to Improve Diagnosis, Management, and Treatment.Exploration of digestive diseases · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There are several meta-analyses about the comparison of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) versus entecavir (ETV) for preventing hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic HBV infection published in recent years. However, the conclusions vary considerably. This umbrella review aims to consolidate evidence from various systematic reviews to evaluate differences in hepatocellular carcinoma prevention between two drugs. Systematic searches were conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science to identify original meta-analyses. Finally, twelve studies were included for quantitative analyses. We found that TDF treatment was associated with a significantly lower risk of HCC than ETV (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI 0.75-0.86, p < 0.05). The lower risk of HCC in patients given TDF compared with ETV persisted in subgroup analyses performed with propensity score-matched cohorts, cirrhosis cohorts, nucleos(t)ide naïve cohorts and Asian cohorts. In the cohorts of non-Asia and patients without cirrhosis, there was no difference exhibited between these two drugs. Subsequent analyses showed TDF treatment was also associated with a lower incidence of death or transplantation than patients receiving ETV. Overall, the preventive effect of these two drugs on HCC has been studied in several published meta-analyses, but few were graded as high-quality evidence, meanwhile, most of which had high overlap. Thus, future researchers should include updated cohorts or conduct prospective RCTs to further explore this issue.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.