Estimations of worldwide prevalence of chronic hepatitis B virus infection: a systematic review of data published between 1965 and 2013.
TL;DR: This first global assessment of country-level population prevalence of chronic HBV infection found a wide variation between countries and highlights the need for continued prevention and control strategies and the collection of reliable epidemiologic data using standardised methodology.
About: This article is published in The Lancet.The article was published on 2015-10-17. It has received 2130 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: HBsAg & Hepatitis B virus.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: This Clinical Practice Guideline presents updated recommendations for the optimal management of HBV infection, and future treatment strategies to achieve 'cure' of disease and new biomarkers are discussed.
3,016 citations
TL;DR: The global prevalence of viral hepatitis remains high, while drug-induced liver injury continues to increase as a major cause of acute hepatitis.
1,799 citations
Devin Razavi-Shearer, Ivane Gamkrelidze1, Mindie H. Nguyen1, Ding-Shinn Chen +192 more•Institutions (1)
TL;DR: The estimate of HBV prevalence in 2016 differs from previous studies, potentially because it took into account the effect of infant prophylaxis and early childhood vaccination, as well as changing prevalence over time.
1,145 citations
Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation1, University of Washington2, University College London3, Qatar Foundation4, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences5, University of Otago6, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham7, University of Melbourne8, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center9, Burnet Institute10, Universiti Sains Malaysia11, George Mason University12, Dartmouth College13, Tehran University of Medical Sciences14, University of California, San Diego15, University of Bristol16, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center17, Environment Agency18, University of Chicago19, Erasmus University Rotterdam20, Case Western Reserve University21, Cancer Treatment Centers of America22, Bayer23, Tufts Medical Center24, Stanford University25, National Research University – Higher School of Economics26, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention27, Jackson State University28, Wuhan University29, Mansoura University30, Imperial College London31
TL;DR: The enormous health loss attributable to viral hepatitis, and the availability of effective vaccines and treatments, suggests an important opportunity to improve public health.
1,081 citations
TL;DR: The burden of cancer among women could be substantially reduced in both HICs and LMICs through broad and equitable implementation of effective interventions, including tobacco control, HPV and HBV vaccination, and screening (breast, cervix, and colorectum).
Abstract: This review is an abbreviated version of a report prepared for the American Cancer Society Global Health department and EMD Serono, Inc., a subsidiary of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, which was released at the Union for International Cancer Control World Cancer Congress in Paris in November 2016. The original report can be found at https://www.cancer.org/health-care-professionals/our-global-health-work/global-cancer-burden/global-burden-of-cancer-in-women.html. Staff in the Intramural Research Department of the American Cancer Society designed and conducted the study, including analysis, interpretation, and presentation of the review. The funding sources had no involvement in the study design, data analysis and interpretation, or preparation of the reviewThere are striking disparities in the global cancer burden in women, yet few publications highlight cancer occurrence in this population, particularly for cancers that are not sex specific. This article, the first in a series of two, summarizes the current burden, trends, risk factors, prevention, early detection, and survivorship of all cancers combined and seven sites (breast, cervix, uterine corpus, ovary, colorectum, lung, and liver) that account for about 60% of the cancer burden among women worldwide, using data from the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Estimated 2012 overall cancer death rates in general are higher among women in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) than high-income countries (HICs), despite their lower overall incidence rates, largely due to inadequate access to early detection and treatment. For example, the top mortality rates are in Zimbabwe (147 deaths per 100,000) and Malawi (138). Furthermore, incidence rates of cancers associated with economic development (e.g., lung, breast, colorectum) are rising in several LMICs. The burden of cancer among women could be substantially reduced in both HICs and LMICs through broad and equitable implementation of effective interventions, including tobacco control, HPV and HBV vaccination, and screening (breast, cervix, and colorectum). Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(4); 444-57. ©2017 AACRSee related article by Islami et al. in this CEBP Focus section, "Global Cancer in Women."
856 citations
References
More filters
Journal Article•
TL;DR: Copyright (©) 1999–2012 R Foundation for Statistical Computing; permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this manual provided the copyright notice and permission notice are preserved on all copies.
Abstract: Copyright (©) 1999–2012 R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this manual provided the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all copies. Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of this manual under the conditions for verbatim copying, provided that the entire resulting derived work is distributed under the terms of a permission notice identical to this one. Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations of this manual into another language, under the above conditions for modified versions, except that this permission notice may be stated in a translation approved by the R Core Team.
272,030 citations
TL;DR: Moher et al. as mentioned in this paper introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which is used in this paper.
Abstract: David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
62,157 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: The QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses) as mentioned in this paper was developed to address the suboptimal reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field,1,2 and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research,3 and some health care journals are moving in this direction.4 As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews.
Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in 4 leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all 8 explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies.5 In 1987, Sacks and colleagues6 evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in 6 domains. Reporting was generally poor; between 1 and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement.7
In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.8 In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1).
Box 1
Conceptual issues in the evolution from QUOROM to PRISMA
46,935 citations
TL;DR: A structured summary is provided including, as applicable, background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions and implications of key findings.
31,379 citations
TL;DR: In the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 (GBD 2013) as discussed by the authors, the authors used the GBD 2010 methods with some refinements to improve accuracy applied to an updated database of vital registration, survey, and census data.
5,792 citations