Skip to main content

Table 1 The baseline characteristics of each study

From: The effectiveness of TDF versus ETV on incidence of HCC in CHB patients: a meta analysis

Study (Year) Design Sample size Gender Mean age (years) N(%) HBeAg + Liver Cirrhosis N(%)HBVDNA detectable NAs therapy-naive(%) Follow-up time(m)
TDF ETV Male Female TDF ETV TDF ETV TDF ETV TDF ETV
Koklu (2013) [14] Retrospective cohort 72 77 114 35 54.2 ± 10.5 52.4 ± 11.2 26 (17.4) 72 77 136 (93.2) NA NA 21.4 ± 10.02 24.0 ± 13.18
Goyal (2015) [15] Retrospective cohort 220 180 280 120 47.3 (24–65) 48.1 (26–65) 155 (38.7) 220 180 400 (100) 78.6 76.1 36 (11–60) 45 (12–68)
Choi (2017) [16] Retrospective cohort 557 557 NA NA NA NA NA 557 557 NA 100 100 Up to 42
Tsai (2017) [17] Retrospective cohort 83 359 322 120 54.9 ± 10.9a 57.8 ± 10.8a 103 (23.3) 83 359 442 (100) 100 100 20.3 ± 6.4 43.8 ± 18.2
Kim.B.G (2018) [19] Retrospective cohort 354 354 442 266 51 ± 11 51 ± 11 455 (64.3) 156 169 708 (100) 100 100 33 (21–46) 66 (36–88)
Kim.Y.M (2018) [18] Retrospective cohort 112 191 186 117 49.3 ± 10.9 47.7 ± 12.3 178 (58.8) NA NA 303 (100) 62.5 86.4 38.5 ± 9.2 66.6 ± 26.8
Yu (2018) [20] Retrospective cohort 176 406 376 206 49 (20–84)a 53 (18–84)a 316 (54.3) 77 148 99 (17.9) 100 100 33.6 (6.3–60.5) 69.9 (6–119.4)
  1. ETV Entecavir, TDF Tenofovir, SD Standard Deviation, NAs nucleos(t) ide analogues, CHB chronic Hepatitis B, NA not available
  2. a with significant differences