Table 1.
The definition of the risk of each bias.
Fig 1.
Flow Chart of Randomized Controlled Trials that were Evaluated.
From: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Iterns for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(6): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097 For more information, visit www.prisma-statement.org.
Table 2.
Main characteristics of studies included.
Fig 2.
Risk of Bias in the Studies that were included in this Meta-analysis.
(A) Review judgments of authors on each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all studies. (B) Review judgments of authors on each methodological quality item for each included study.
Fig 3.
Forest Plot for Undetectable HBV DNA when ETV was used as the Control Group.
(A) Forest plot for undetectable HBV DNA based on a fixed-effects model. (B) Forest plot for undetectable HBV DNA based on a random-effects model.
Fig 4.
Forest Plot for Undetectable HBV DNA when IFN was used as the Control Group.
(A) Forest plot for undetectable HBV DNA based on a random-effects model. (B) Forest plot for undetectable HBV DNA based on a fixed-effects model.
Fig 5.
Forest Plot for ALT Normalization when ETV was used as the Control Group.
(A) Forest plot for ALT normalization based on a random-effects model. (B) Forest plot for ALT normalization based on a fixed-effects model.
Fig 6.
Forest Plot for ALT Normalization when IFN was used as the Control Group.
(A) Forest plot for ALT normalization based on a random-effects model. (B) Forest plot for ALT normalization based on a fixed-effects model.
Fig 7.
Forest Plot for HBeAg Seroconversion when ETV was used as the Control Group.
Fig 8.
Forest Plot for HBeAg Seroconversion when IFN was used as the Control Group.
Table 3.
Sensitivity analysis for all outcomes with high heterogeneity.
Table 4.
Publication bias for all outcomes included.