IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0224773.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative efficacy of tenofovir and entecavir in nucleos(t)ide analogue-naive chronic hepatitis B: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Mao-bing Chen
  • Hua Wang
  • Qi-han Zheng
  • Xu-wen Zheng
  • Jin-nuo Fan
  • Yun-long Ding
  • Jia-li Niu

Abstract

Objective: To compare the efficacy of tenofovir and entecavir in nucleos(t)ide analogue-naive chronic hepatitis B. Methods: The Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Clinical Trials and China National Knowledge Infrastructure(CNKI) databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the comparison between tenofovir and entecavir in nucleos(t)ide analogue-naive chronic hepatitis B (CHB) since the date of database inception to July 2019. Two researchers independently screened and evaluated the obtained studies and extracted the outcome indexes. RevMan 5.3 software was used for the meta-analysis. Results: Early on, tenofovir had a greater ability to inhibit the hepatitis B virus, I2 = 0% [RR = 1.08, 95% CI (1.03, 1.13), P

Suggested Citation

  • Mao-bing Chen & Hua Wang & Qi-han Zheng & Xu-wen Zheng & Jin-nuo Fan & Yun-long Ding & Jia-li Niu, 2019. "Comparative efficacy of tenofovir and entecavir in nucleos(t)ide analogue-naive chronic hepatitis B: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-13, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0224773
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224773
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0224773
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0224773&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0224773?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0224773. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.