Comparison of renal safety of tenofovir and entecavir in patients with chronic hepatitis B: Systematic review with meta-analysis

Figure 1 PRISMA diagram of the literature search. TDF: Tenofovir; ETV: Entecavir; SD: Standard deviation.

Figure 2 Forest plot for the change of serum creatinine. In each enrolled study, the change (between post-treatment and baseline) is calculated in each arm [tenofovir (TDF) vs entecavir (ETV)]. The difference in mean change between the two changes (δ TDF - δ ETV) is then calculated. TDF: Tenofovir; ETV: Entecavir; SD: Standard deviation; CI: Confidence interval.

Figure 3 Forest plot for the change of estimated glomerular filtration rate. In each enrolled study, the change (between post-treatment and baseline) is calculated in each arm [tenofovir (TDF) vs entecavir (ETV)]. The difference in standardized mean change between the two changes (δ TDF - δ ETV) is then calculated, since each study utilized different formulas. TDF: Tenofovir; ETV: Entecavir; SD: Standard deviation; CI: Confidence interval.

Figure 4 Subgroup analysis. Likewise, the change is calculated using a common formula in each arm to assess the effect size. A: Modification of diet in renal disease, B: Chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration. TDF: Tenofovir; ETV: Entecavir; SD: Standard deviation; CI: Confidence interval.

Figure 5 Sensitivity analysis. Meta-regression of difference in mean age (A) and creatinine (B). The circles on the graph represent included studies; the size of the circle indicates the weight of each study. To check the robustness of this study, we tentatively excluded one heterogeneous study[19] (C). TDF: Tenofovir; ETV: Entecavir; SD: Standard deviation; CI: Confidence interval.

Figure 6 Funnel plot for publication bias in all included studies. The empty circles represent the observed studies and empty and black-filled diamonds represent the overall random effects means and 95% confidence intervals of the observed studies.