The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Long-Term Treatment Outcomes of Patients Infected With Hepatitis C Virus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Survival Benefit of Achieving a Sustained Virological Response
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Achievement of a sustained virologic response (SVR) after treatment for Hepatitis C infection is associated with improved outcomes. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the impact of SVR on long-term mortality risk compared with nonresponders in a range of populations. METHODS: An electronic search identified all studies assessing all-cause mortality in SVR and non-SVR patients. Eligible articles were stratified into general, cirrhotic, and populations coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus. The adjusted hazard ratio (95% confidence interval [CI]) for mortality in patients achieving SVR vs non-SVR, and pooled estimates for the 5-year mortality in each group were calculated. RESULTS: 31 studies (n = 33 360) were identified as suitable for inclusion. Median follow-up time was 5.4 years (interquartile range, 4.9-7.5) across all studies. The adjusted hazard ratio of mortality for patients achieving SVR vs non-SVR was 0.50 (95% CI, .37-.67) in the general population, 0.26 (95% CI, .18-.74) in the cirrhotic group, and 0.21 (.10-.45) in the coinfected group. The pooled 5-year mortality rates were significantly lower for patients achieving SVR compared with non-SVR in all 3 populations. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that there is a significant survival benefit of achieving an SVR compared with unsuccessful treatment in a range of populations infected with hepatitis C virus.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Assessing Bias in Studies of Prognostic Factors
Hayden, J. A., van der Windt, D. A., Cartwright, J. L., Côté, P., & Bombardier, C. (2013) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-158-4-201302190-00009 · Cited by 3,287
Understanding controlled trials: Why are randomised controlled trials important?
Sibbald, B., & Roland, M. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7126.201 · Cited by 807
Metadata
- Authors
- Simmons, B., Saleem, J., Heath, K., Cooke, G. S., & Hill, A.
- Venue
- Clinical Infectious Diseases
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2015-05-17
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 730-740
- ISSN
- 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-6591
- OpenAlex
- W2170706646
- Cited by
- 261
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 6.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Long-Term Treatment Outcomes of Patients Infected With Hepatitis C Virus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Survival Benefit of Achieving a Sustained Virological Response. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/cid/civ396
- The paper
- Simmons, B., Saleem, J., Heath, K., Cooke, G. S., & Hill, A. (2015). Long-Term Treatment Outcomes of Patients Infected With Hepatitis C Virus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Survival Benefit of Achieving a Sustained Virological Response. Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/civ396
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.