Comparison 5. 'Worst‐case' scenario (treatment failure).

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Loss of serum HBsAg	3	257	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	3.77 [1.32, 10.78]
1.1 Potenlini vs non‐specific treatment	1	40	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.2 Fuzheng Jiedu Tang vs non‐specific treatment	1	150	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	5.89 [1.40, 24.87]
1.3 Anisodamine + S. miltiorrhizae vs non‐specific treatment	1	67	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.62 [0.32, 8.26]
2 Loss of serum HBeAg	4	305	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.96 [0.58, 6.61]
2.1 Kurorinone vs alfa‐IFN	1	59	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.85 [0.52, 1.39]
2.2 Potenlini vs non‐specific treatment	1	35	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.22 [0.59, 2.53]
2.3 Fuzheng Jiedu Tang vs non‐specific treatment	1	150	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	10.74 [3.48, 33.14]
2.4 Anisodamine + S. miltiorrhizae vs non‐specific treatment	1	61	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.59 [0.31, 8.03]
3 Loss of serum HBV DNA	3	194	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	2.09 [0.35, 12.35]
3.1 Kurorinone vs alfa‐IFN	1	66	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.79 [0.49, 1.28]
3.2 Fuzheng Jiedu Tang vs non‐specific treatment	1	70	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	11.79 [1.64, 84.84]
3.3 Anisodamine + S. miltiorrhizae vs non‐specific treatment	1	58	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.61 [0.29, 8.92]