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