Meta-analyses on viral hepatitis

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Standard

Meta-analyses on viral hepatitis. / Gluud, Lise L; Gluud, Christian.

In: Infectious Disease Clinics of North America, Vol. 23, No. 2, 2009, p. 315-30.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Gluud, LL & Gluud, C 2009, 'Meta-analyses on viral hepatitis', Infectious Disease Clinics of North America, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 315-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idc.2009.01.005

APA

Gluud, L. L., & Gluud, C. (2009). Meta-analyses on viral hepatitis. Infectious Disease Clinics of North America, 23(2), 315-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idc.2009.01.005

Vancouver

Gluud LL, Gluud C. Meta-analyses on viral hepatitis. Infectious Disease Clinics of North America. 2009;23(2):315-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idc.2009.01.005

Author

Gluud, Lise L ; Gluud, Christian. / Meta-analyses on viral hepatitis. In: Infectious Disease Clinics of North America. 2009 ; Vol. 23, No. 2. pp. 315-30.

Bibtex

@article{a40146b068c411df928f000ea68e967b,
title = "Meta-analyses on viral hepatitis",
abstract = "This article summarizes the meta-analyses of interventions for viral hepatitis A, B, and C. Some of the interventions assessed are described in small trials with unclear bias control. Other interventions are supported by large, high-quality trials. Although attempts have been made to adjust for unclear bias control, analysis of publication bias and other biases is difficult when only few trials are available. It is possible that some of the meta-analyses presented in this article are biased. Furthermore, performing updated cumulative meta-analyses also may introduce random error.3,4 The extent and direction of bias may vary. On average, however, bias leads to overestimated intervention benefits.1 Accordingly, the benefit of some of the interventions suggested in this article may be exaggerated by systematic and random errors. Additional research including large, randomized trials is necessary to clarify the true intervention effects.",
author = "Gluud, {Lise L} and Christian Gluud",
note = "Keywords: Hepatitis A; Hepatitis B; Hepatitis C; Humans; Immunotherapy; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Vaccination",
year = "2009",
doi = "10.1016/j.idc.2009.01.005",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "315--30",
journal = "Infectious Disease Clinics of North America",
issn = "0891-5520",
publisher = "W.B.Saunders Co.",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Meta-analyses on viral hepatitis

AU - Gluud, Lise L

AU - Gluud, Christian

N1 - Keywords: Hepatitis A; Hepatitis B; Hepatitis C; Humans; Immunotherapy; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Vaccination

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - This article summarizes the meta-analyses of interventions for viral hepatitis A, B, and C. Some of the interventions assessed are described in small trials with unclear bias control. Other interventions are supported by large, high-quality trials. Although attempts have been made to adjust for unclear bias control, analysis of publication bias and other biases is difficult when only few trials are available. It is possible that some of the meta-analyses presented in this article are biased. Furthermore, performing updated cumulative meta-analyses also may introduce random error.3,4 The extent and direction of bias may vary. On average, however, bias leads to overestimated intervention benefits.1 Accordingly, the benefit of some of the interventions suggested in this article may be exaggerated by systematic and random errors. Additional research including large, randomized trials is necessary to clarify the true intervention effects.

AB - This article summarizes the meta-analyses of interventions for viral hepatitis A, B, and C. Some of the interventions assessed are described in small trials with unclear bias control. Other interventions are supported by large, high-quality trials. Although attempts have been made to adjust for unclear bias control, analysis of publication bias and other biases is difficult when only few trials are available. It is possible that some of the meta-analyses presented in this article are biased. Furthermore, performing updated cumulative meta-analyses also may introduce random error.3,4 The extent and direction of bias may vary. On average, however, bias leads to overestimated intervention benefits.1 Accordingly, the benefit of some of the interventions suggested in this article may be exaggerated by systematic and random errors. Additional research including large, randomized trials is necessary to clarify the true intervention effects.

U2 - 10.1016/j.idc.2009.01.005

DO - 10.1016/j.idc.2009.01.005

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 19393912

VL - 23

SP - 315

EP - 330

JO - Infectious Disease Clinics of North America

JF - Infectious Disease Clinics of North America

SN - 0891-5520

IS - 2

ER -

ID: 19979033