Comparison 1. Chinese medicinal herbs versus placebo or non‐specific treatment.

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Loss of serum HBsAg	7	508	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	3.09 [1.50, 6.34]
1.1 Phyllanthus amarus vs non‐specific treatment	1	122	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.90 [0.61, 13.82]
1.2 Polyporus umbellatus polysaccharide vs placebo	1	64	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.5 [0.52, 11.96]
1.3 Polyporus umbellatus polysaccharide vs non‐specific treatment	1	60	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	3.0 [0.33, 27.23]
1.4 Potenlini vs non‐specific treatment	1	37	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.5 Fuzheng Jiedu Tang vs non‐specific treatment	1	132	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	5.19 [1.24, 21.78]
1.6 Kangdu Wan vs placebo	1	41	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.7 Anisodamine + S. miltiorrhizae vs non‐specific treatment	1	52	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.59 [0.32, 7.91]
2 Loss of serum HBeAg	7	420	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	3.25 [1.72, 6.13]
2.1 Phyllanthus amarus vs non‐specific treatment	1	94	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	3.35 [1.49, 7.56]
2.2 Polyporus umbellatus polysaccharide vs placebo	1	23	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	3.06 [1.13, 8.29]
2.3 Polyporus umbellatus polysaccharide vs non‐specific treatment	1	60	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	5.5 [1.33, 22.73]
2.4 Potenlini vs non‐specific treatment	1	32	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.43 [0.70, 2.90]
2.5 Fuzheng Jiedu Tang vs non‐specific treatment	1	132	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	10.85 [3.56, 33.06]
2.6 Kangdu Wan vs placebo	1	33	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	4.14 [0.23, 73.89]
2.7 Anisodamine + S. miltiorrhizae vs non‐specific treatment	1	46	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.54 [0.31, 7.58]
3 Seroconversion of serum HBeAg to anti‐HBe antibody	2	130	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.74 [1.24, 6.05]
3.1 Phyllanthus amarus vs non‐specific treatment	1	98	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.24 [0.94, 5.35]
3.2 Polyporus umbellatus polysaccharide vs placebo	0	0	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
3.3 Polyporus umbellatus polysaccharide vs non‐specific treatment	0	0	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
3.4 Potenlini vs non‐specific treatment	1	32	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	5.44 [0.76, 39.25]
3.5 Fuzheng Jiedu Tang vs non‐specific treatment	0	0	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
3.6 Kangdu Wan vs placebo	0	0	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
3.7 Anisodamine + S. miltiorrhizae vs non‐specific treatment	0	0	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
4 Loss of serum HBV DNA	4	179	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	4.91 [2.01, 12.01]
4.1 Phyllanthus amarus vs non‐specific treatment	0	0	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
4.2 Polyporus umbellatus polysaccharide vs placebo	0	0	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
4.3 Polyporus umbellatus polysaccharide vs non‐specific treatment	1	48	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	4.14 [1.00, 17.19]
4.4 Potenlini vs non‐specific treatment	0	0	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
4.5 Fuzheng Jiedu Tang vs non‐specific treatment	1	47	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	8.5 [1.23, 58.84]
4.6 Kangdu Wan vs placebo	1	41	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	9.81 [0.60, 160.75]
4.7 Anisodamine + S. miltiorrhizae vs non‐specific treatment	1	43	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.73 [0.32, 9.31]
5 Serum ALT normalisation	4	189	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.41 [1.14, 1.75]
5.1 Phyllanthus amarus vs non‐specific treatment	0	0	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
5.2 Polyporus umbellatus polysaccharide vs placebo	1	65	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.01 [0.90, 4.53]
5.3 Polyporus umbellatus polysaccharide vs non‐specific treatment	0	0	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
5.4 Potenlini vs non‐specific treatment	1	40	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.16 [0.84, 1.60]
5.5 Fuzheng Jiedu Tang vs non‐specific treatment	0	0	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
5.6 Kangdu Wan vs placebo	1	17	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	3.33 [0.55, 20.13]
5.7 Anisodamine + S. miltiorrhizae vs non‐specific treatment	1	67	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.29 [1.03, 1.62]