Skip to main content

Table 3 Methodological quality of randomised controlled trials

From: Comparison of the efficacy of tenofovir and adefovir in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B: A Systematic Review

Outcomes Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) Relative effect (95% CI) No of Participants (studies) Quality of the evidence (GRADE)†
  Assumed risk (per 1000) orresponding risk (per 1000)    
  Adefovir Tenofovir    
HBV-DNA suppression 425 1000(429 to 1000) RR 2.59 (1.01 to 6.67) 694(3 studies) low
   HBV-HIV coinfected subgroup 185 440(248 to 784) RR 2.38 (1.34 to 4.24) 137(2 studies) moderate
ALT normalization 634 729(609 to 869) RR 1.15 (0.96 to 1.37) 768(5 studies) low
   lamivudine-resistance subgroup 554 731(554 to 964) RR 1.32 (1.00 to 1.74) 132(2 studies) low
HBeAg seroconversion 140 167(104 to 267) RR 1.19 (0.74 to 1.91) 387(3 studies) low
HBsAg loss 0 0 RR 5.74 (0.32 to 102.59) 615(2 studies) high
  1. *The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the entecavir group and the relative effect of the lamivudine (and its 95% CI).
  2. High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
  3. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.