Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Phyllanthus species versus antiviral drugs for chronic hepatitis B virus infection

  1. Yun Xia1,2,
  2. Hui Luo1,
  3. Jian Ping Liu1,2,*,
  4. Christian Gluud2

Editorial Group: Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group

Published Online: 30 APR 2013

Assessed as up-to-date: 5 DEC 2012

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009004.pub2


How to Cite

Xia Y, Luo H, Liu JP, Gluud C. Phyllanthus species versus antiviral drugs for chronic hepatitis B virus infection. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD009004. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009004.pub2.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Centre for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China

  2. 2

    Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Department 7812, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group, Copenhagen, Denmark

*Jian Ping Liu, jianping_l@hotmail.com. jianping@fagmed.uit.no.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New
  2. Published Online: 30 APR 2013

SEARCH

[Figure 1]
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the search.
[Figure 2]
Figure 2. Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
[Figure 3]
Figure 3. Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
[Figure 4]
Figure 4. Figure 4: Trial sequential analysis with a type 1 error of 5% on phyllanthus species versus antiviral drugs for patients with chronic hepatitis B on clearance of serum HBeAg. Trial sequential analysis of five trials (marked with black squares), illustrating that the cumulative Z-curve (blue curve) did not cross the monitoring boundaries (red inward sloping curves), which is needed to obtain firm evidence controlling for the risk of random error. The required information size (RIS) is calculated to be 1574 patients (vertical line) based on a relative risk reduction (RRR) of 10%, event proportion of 75.8% in the control group (PC), type I error (α) of 5%, type II error (β) of 20%, and diversity (D) of 30%.
[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Phyllanthus versus antiviral drug, Outcome 1 Number of patients with detectable serum HBsAg.
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Phyllanthus versus antiviral drug, Outcome 2 Number of patients with detectable serum HBV DNA ( end of treatment ).
[Analysis 1.3]
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Phyllanthus versus antiviral drug, Outcome 3 Number of patients with detectable serum HBV DNA ( end of post-treatment follow-up ).
[Analysis 1.4]
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 Phyllanthus versus antiviral drug, Outcome 4 Number of patients with detectable serum HBeAg ( end of treatment ).
[Analysis 1.5]
Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 Phyllanthus versus antiviral drug, Outcome 5 Number of patients with detectable serum HBeAg ( end of post-treatment follow-up ).
[Analysis 1.6]
Analysis 1.6. Comparison 1 Phyllanthus versus antiviral drug, Outcome 6 Number of patients without HBeAg seroconversion ( end of treatment ).
[Analysis 2.1]
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Phyllanthus versus antiviral drug according to antiviral drugs, Outcome 1 Number of patients with detectable serum HBsAg.
[Analysis 2.2]
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Phyllanthus versus antiviral drug according to antiviral drugs, Outcome 2 Number of patients with detectable serum HBV DNA ( end of treatment ).
[Analysis 2.3]
Analysis 2.3. Comparison 2 Phyllanthus versus antiviral drug according to antiviral drugs, Outcome 3 Number of patients with detectable serum HBeAg ( end of treatment ).
[Analysis 2.4]
Analysis 2.4. Comparison 2 Phyllanthus versus antiviral drug according to antiviral drugs, Outcome 4 Number of patients without HBeAg seroconversion (end of treatment).