Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 369

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 66 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clinical Potential of the Acyclic Nucleoside Phosphonates Cidofovir, Adefovir, and Tenofovir in Treatment of DNA Virus and Retrovirus Infections

Open access
De Clercq, Erik·2003·Clinical Microbiology Reviews

Abstract

SUMMARY: The acyclic nucleoside phosphonates HPMPC (cidofovir), PMEA (adefovir), and PMPA (tenofovir) have proved to be effective in vitro (cell culture systems) and in vivo (animal models and clinical studies) against a wide variety of DNA virus and retrovirus infections: cidofovir against herpesvirus (herpes simplex virus types 1 and 2 varicella-zoster virus, cytomegalovirus [CMV], Epstein-Barr virus, and human herpesviruses 6, 7, and 8), polyomavirus, papillomavirus, adenovirus, and poxvirus (variola virus, cowpox virus, vaccinia virus, molluscum contagiosum virus, and orf virus) infections; adefovir against herpesvirus, hepadnavirus (human hepatitis B virus), and retrovirus (human immunodeficiency virus types 1 [HIV-1] and 2 [HIV-2], simian immunodeficiency virus, and feline immunodeficiency virus) infections; and tenofovir against both hepadnavirus and retrovirus infections. Cidofovir (Vistide) has been officially approved for the treatment of CMV retinitis in AIDS patients, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (Viread) has been approved for the treatment of HIV infections (i.e., AIDS), and adefovir dipivoxil (Hepsera) has been approved for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B. Nephrotoxicity is the dose-limiting side effect for cidofovir (Vistide) when used intravenously (5 mg/kg); no toxic side effects have been described for adefovir dipivoxil and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, at the approved doses (Hepsera at 10 mg orally daily and Viread at 300 mg orally daily).

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/cmr.16.4.569-596.2003

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 66 references

Cited by

See all 369

Metadata

Authors
De Clercq, E.
Venue
Clinical Microbiology Reviews
Published
2003-10
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
569-596
ISSN
  • 0893-8512 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-6618
OpenAlex
W2168652503
Cited by
369
References
66
FWCI
13.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Clinical Potential of the Acyclic Nucleoside Phosphonates Cidofovir, Adefovir, and Tenofovir in Treatment of DNA Virus and Retrovirus Infections. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/cmr.16.4.569-596.2003
The paper
De Clercq, E. (2003). Clinical Potential of the Acyclic Nucleoside Phosphonates Cidofovir, Adefovir, and Tenofovir in Treatment of DNA Virus and Retrovirus Infections. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1128/cmr.16.4.569-596.2003

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.