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.