FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3149249625> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3149249625 endingPage "e343" @default.
• W3149249625 startingPage "e342" @default.
• W3149249625 abstract "We thank Bao-Hong Yuan and colleagues for their interest in our meta-analysis, which showed that tenofovir disoproxil fumarate treatment is more effective in preventing hepatitis B–associated hepatocellular carcinoma development compared with entecavir.1Choi W.M. et al.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021; 19: 246-258Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (61) Google Scholar Appreciating their incisive comments, we are sharing our opinion on their concerns as follows. First of all, the unadjusted hazard ratio of the 3 studies that were indicated by Bao-Hong Yuan and colleagues were estimated by Poisson regression under the assumption of constant hazards in each group during the follow-up period.2Hernán M.A. Epidemiology. 2010; 21: 13-15Crossref PubMed Scopus (681) Google Scholar,3Vonesh E.F. et al.Kidney Int. 2000; 57: S19-S27Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (49) Google Scholar We also considered that many other meta-analyses on the same topic included those studies.4Zhang Z. et al.BMC Cancer. 2019; 19: 511Crossref PubMed Scopus (50) Google Scholar, 5Wang X. et al.Gut Liver. 2020; 14: 232-247Crossref PubMed Scopus (33) Google Scholar, 6Gu L. et al.J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020; 35: 1467-1476Crossref PubMed Scopus (20) Google Scholar When we excluded those 3 studies, our meta-analysis yielded very similar results showing a significantly lower risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in tenofovir disoproxil fumarate than entecavir (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.68–0.95). Second, the study “Huang et al 2019” listed as the 25th reference in our meta-analysis was actually presented by Huang YH as a poster during the Liver Meeting 2019 of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, although the first author of the corresponding abstract was Lee CJ. We regret causing the confusion; however, we wanted to appreciate the actual presenter based on the most updated information at the time of our analysis. Third, we intentionally excluded the results from the Korean nationwide cohort7Choi J. et al.JAMA Oncol. 2019; 5: 30-36Crossref PubMed Scopus (198) Google Scholar for our pooled analysis, because of the concern that many patients in the nationwide cohort may overlap with the patients from other Korean hospital cohort studies. Lastly, we chose subgroup analyses based on the results from the meta-regression analysis. When we conducted the subgroup analysis of studies that included only treatment-naive patients, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate was consistently associated with a significantly lower incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.61–0.92) compared with entecavir. Again, we are grateful for their interest in our meta-analysis, and hope our reply could allay their concerns. Effects of Tenofovir vs Entecavir on Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With CHB: A Comment for Moving ForwardClinical Gastroenterology and HepatologyVol. 20Issue 2PreviewWe read with interest the meta-analysis by Choi et al.1 Their meta-analysis pooled the hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for incidences of hepatocellular carcinoma. They found tenofovir treatment was associated with a significantly lower risk of hepatocellular carcinoma than entecavir in patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection. Moreover, sensitivity analysis with propensity score–matched cohorts and subgroup analysis with cirrhosis subcohorts confirmed the findings. We applaud Choi et al1 for providing this interesting study that seems to settle a very controversial and hot issue. Full-Text PDF" @default.
• W3149249625 created "2021-04-13" @default.
• W3149249625 creator A5027735596 @default.
• W3149249625 creator A5040147082 @default.
• W3149249625 creator A5083783975 @default.
• W3149249625 date "2022-02-01" @default.
• W3149249625 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W3149249625 title "Reply" @default.
• W3149249625 cites W1973885323 @default.
• W3149249625 cites W2090492250 @default.
• W3149249625 cites W2893123471 @default.
• W3149249625 cites W2947167103 @default.
• W3149249625 cites W2948441821 @default.
• W3149249625 cites W3010876076 @default.
• W3149249625 cites W3023993558 @default.
• W3149249625 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2021.03.035" @default.
• W3149249625 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33798710" @default.
• W3149249625 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
• W3149249625 type Work @default.
• W3149249625 sameAs 3149249625 @default.
• W3149249625 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3149249625 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3149249625 hasAuthorship W3149249625A5027735596 @default.
• W3149249625 hasAuthorship W3149249625A5040147082 @default.
• W3149249625 hasAuthorship W3149249625A5083783975 @default.
• W3149249625 hasBestOaLocation W31492496251 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConcept C159047783 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConcept C207103383 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConcept C2522874641 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConcept C2776175608 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConcept C2777382497 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConcept C2777869810 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConcept C2778019345 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConcept C3020491458 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConcept C3020774429 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConcept C44249647 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConcept C556039675 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConcept C83867959 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConcept C90924648 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConcept C95190672 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConceptScore W3149249625C126322002 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConceptScore W3149249625C159047783 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConceptScore W3149249625C17744445 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConceptScore W3149249625C199539241 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConceptScore W3149249625C207103383 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConceptScore W3149249625C2522874641 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConceptScore W3149249625C2776175608 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConceptScore W3149249625C2777382497 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConceptScore W3149249625C2777869810 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConceptScore W3149249625C2778019345 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConceptScore W3149249625C2779473830 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConceptScore W3149249625C3020491458 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConceptScore W3149249625C3020774429 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConceptScore W3149249625C44249647 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConceptScore W3149249625C556039675 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConceptScore W3149249625C71924100 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConceptScore W3149249625C83867959 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConceptScore W3149249625C90924648 @default.
• W3149249625 hasConceptScore W3149249625C95190672 @default.
• W3149249625 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W3149249625 hasLocation W31492496251 @default.
• W3149249625 hasLocation W31492496252 @default.
• W3149249625 hasOpenAccess W3149249625 @default.
• W3149249625 hasPrimaryLocation W31492496251 @default.
• W3149249625 hasRelatedWork W2347909516 @default.
• W3149249625 hasRelatedWork W2606125816 @default.
• W3149249625 hasRelatedWork W2805725537 @default.
• W3149249625 hasRelatedWork W2942160627 @default.
• W3149249625 hasRelatedWork W2983531507 @default.
• W3149249625 hasRelatedWork W2995900216 @default.
• W3149249625 hasRelatedWork W3026778809 @default.
• W3149249625 hasRelatedWork W3048770335 @default.
• W3149249625 hasRelatedWork W4319927115 @default.
• W3149249625 hasRelatedWork W4384942290 @default.
• W3149249625 hasVolume "20" @default.
• W3149249625 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3149249625 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3149249625 magId "3149249625" @default.
• W3149249625 workType "article" @default.