| Chen QR (2018) | ☆ At least somewhat representative of the average HBV-infected pregnant woman | ☆ Drawn from the same community (same inclusion and exclusion criteria also) | No description | ☆ Always the case | ☆☆Same HBeAg serostatus and comparable HBV DNA levels at baseline. Same regimen for infant immunoprophylaxis at birth | No description | ☆ Yes | No statement on LFU | 6 (high) |
| Li JH (2017) | ☆ At least somewhat representative of the average HBV-infected pregnant woman | ☆ Drawn from the same community (same inclusion and exclusion criteria also) | ☆Valid method was used to ascertain adherence to the antiviral therapy (decrease in viral load levels subsequent to the treatment) | ☆ Always the case | ☆ Comparable for HBV DNA levels at baseline but HBeAg serostatus not described. Same regimen for infant immunoprophylaxis | ☆ Indication of record linkage (results viewed retrospectively in medical records) | ☆ Yes (always the case) | None reported (retrospective) | 7 (low) |
| Ren CJ (2016) | ☆ At least somewhat representative of the average HBV-infected pregnant woman | ☆ Drawn from the same community (same inclusion and exclusion criteria also) | ☆Valid method was used to ascertain adherence to the antiviral therapy (decrease in viral load levels subsequent to the treatment) | ☆ Always the case | ☆☆Same HBeAg serostatus and same thresholds for HBV DNA level. Same regimen for infant immunoprophylaxis at birth | ☆ Laboratory methods described in detail (which assay used), indicating use of a central laboratory and/or record linkage | ☆ Yes | No statement on LFU | 8 (low) |
| Shen ML (2016) | ☆ At least somewhat representative of the average HBV-infected pregnant woman | ☆ Drawn from the same community (same inclusion and exclusion criteria also) | ☆Valid method was used to ascertain adherence to the antiviral therapy (decrease in viral load levels subsequent to the treatment) | ☆ Always the case | Same thresholds for HBV DNA level but HBeAg serostatus not described. Regimen for infant immunoprophylaxis at birth not clearly described | ☆ Laboratory methods described in detail (which assay used), indicating use of a central laboratory and/or record linkage | ☆ Yes | No statement on LFU | 6 (high) |
| Wang DM (2016) | ☆ At least somewhat representative of the average HBV-infected pregnant woman | ☆ Drawn from the same community (same inclusion and exclusion criteria also) | ☆Valid method was used to ascertain adherence to the antiviral therapy (decrease in viral load levels subsequent to the treatment) | ☆ Always the case | ☆☆Same HBeAg serostatus and same thresholds for HBV DNA level. Same regimen for infant immunoprophylaxis at birth | ☆ Laboratory methods described in detail (which assay used), indicating use of a central laboratory and/or record linkage | ☆ Yes | No statement on LFU | 8 (low) |
| Ge YL (2015) | ☆ At least somewhat representative of the average HBV-infected pregnant woman | ☆ Drawn from the same community (same inclusion and exclusion criteria also) | ☆Valid method was used to ascertain adherence to the antiviral therapy (decrease in viral load levels subsequent to the treatment) | ☆ Always the case | ☆☆Same HBeAg serostatus and same thresholds for HBV DNA level. Same regimen for infant immunoprophylaxis at birth | No description | ☆ Yes | No statement on LFU | 7 (low) |
| Han YP (2014) | ☆ At least somewhat representative of the average HBV-infected pregnant woman | ☆ Drawn from the same community (same inclusion and exclusion criteria also) | ☆Valid method was used to ascertain adherence to the antiviral therapy (decrease in viral load levels subsequent to the treatment) | ☆ Always the case | ☆☆Same HBeAg serostatus and same thresholds for HBV DNA level. Same regimen for infant immunoprophylaxis at birth | No description | ☆ Yes | No statement on LFU | 7 (low) |
| Wang W (2014) | ☆ At least somewhat representative of the average HBV-infected pregnant woman | ☆ Drawn from the same community (same inclusion and exclusion criteria also) | ☆Valid method was used to ascertain adherence to the antiviral therapy (decrease in viral load levels subsequent to the treatment) | ☆ Always the case | ☆Comparable for HBV DNA levels but HBeAg serostatus not described. Same regimen for infant immunoprophylaxis at birth | ☆ Laboratory methods described in detail (which assay used), indicating use of a central laboratory and/or record linkage | ☆ Yes | No statement on LFU | 7 (low) |
| Zhu M (2014) | ☆ At least somewhat representative of the average HBV-infected pregnant woman | ☆ Drawn from the same community | ☆Valid method was used to ascertain adherence to the antiviral therapy (decrease in viral load levels subsequent to the treatment) | ☆ Always the case | ☆ Comparable for HBeAg serostatus but HBV DNA levels not described. Same regimen for infant immunoprophylaxis | ☆ Laboratory assays described | ☆ Yes (always the case) | No statement on LFU | 6 (high) |
| Zeng YM (2013) | ☆ At least somewhat representative of the average HBV-infected pregnant woman | ☆ Drawn from the same community (same inclusion and exclusion criteria also) | ☆Valid method was used to ascertain adherence to the antiviral therapy (decrease in viral load levels subsequent to the treatment) | ☆ Always the case | ☆Same HBeAg serostatus and same thresholds for HBV DNA level. Regimen for infant immunoprophylaxis at birth not described clearly | ☆ Laboratory methods described in detail (which assay used), indicating use of a central laboratory and/or record linkage | ☆ Yes | No statement on LFU | 7 (low) |
| Zhou DS (2013) | ☆ At least somewhat representative of the average HBV-infected pregnant woman | ☆ Drawn from the same community (same inclusion and exclusion criteria also) | No description | ☆ Always the case | ☆Same thresholds for HBV DNA level but HBeAg serostatus not described. Same regimen for infant immunoprophylaxis at birth | ☆ Laboratory methods described in detail (which assay used), indicating use of a central laboratory and/or record linkage | ☆ Yes | No statement on LFU | 6 (high) |
| Jiang HX (2012) | ☆ At least somewhat representative of the average HBV-infected pregnant woman | ☆ Drawn from the same community (same inclusion and exclusion criteria also) | ☆Valid method was used to ascertain adherence to the antiviral therapy (decrease in viral load levels subsequent to the treatment) | ☆ Always the case | ☆☆Same HBeAg serostatus and same thresholds for HBV DNA level. Same regimen for infant immunoprophylaxis at birth | ☆ Laboratory methods described in detail (which assay used), indicating use of a central laboratory and/or record linkage | ☆ Yes | No statement on LFU | 8 (low) |
| Wang EJ (2012) | ☆ At least somewhat representative of the average HBV-infected pregnant woman | ☆ Drawn from the same community (same inclusion and exclusion criteria also) | ☆Valid method was used to ascertain adherence to the antiviral therapy (decrease in viral load levels subsequent to the treatment) | ☆ Always the case | ☆☆Same HBeAg serostatus and same thresholds for HBV DNA level. Same regimen for infant immunoprophylaxis at birth | ☆ Laboratory methods described in detail (which assay used), indicating use of a central laboratory and/or record linkage | ☆ Yes | No statement on LFU | 8 (low) |
| Yuan QF (2012) | ☆ At least somewhat representative of the average HBV-infected pregnant woman | ☆ Drawn from the same community (same inclusion and exclusion criteria also) | Adherence/compliance not mentioned and no data presented on decrease in HBV DNA levels | ☆ Always the case | ☆ Comparable for HBeAg serostatus but HBV DNA level not described. Same regimen for infant immunoprophylaxis | ☆ Indication of record linkage | ☆ Yes (always the case) | No statement on LFU | 6 (high) |
| Cheng YC (2011) | ☆ At least somewhat representative of the average HBV-infected pregnant woman | ☆ Drawn from the same community (same inclusion and exclusion criteria also) | ☆Valid method was used to ascertain adherence to the antiviral therapy (decrease in viral load levels subsequent to the treatment) | ☆ Always the case | ☆☆Same HBeAg serostatus and same thresholds for HBV DNA level. Same regimen for infant immunoprophylaxis at birth | ☆ Laboratory methods described in detail (which assay used), indicating use of a central laboratory and/or record linkage | ☆ Yes | No statement on LFU | 8 (low) |
| Ren YJ (2011) | ☆ At least somewhat representative of the average HBV-infected pregnant woman | ☆ Drawn from the same community | ☆Valid method was used to ascertain adherence to the antiviral therapy (decrease in viral load levels subsequent to the treatment) | ☆ Always the case | ☆ Comparable for HBeAg serostatus but not for HBV DNA level. Same regimen for infant immunoprophylaxis | ☆ Laboratory assays described | ☆ Yes (always the case) | No statement on LFU | 7 (low) |
| Zhang YF (2010) | ☆ At least somewhat representative of the average HBV-infected pregnant woman | ☆ Drawn from the same community (same inclusion and exclusion criteria also) | ☆Valid method was used to ascertain adherence to the antiviral therapy (decrease in viral load levels subsequent to the treatment) | ☆ Always the case | ☆☆Same HBeAg serostatus and same thresholds for HBV DNA level. Same regimen for infant immunoprophylaxis at birth | No description | ☆ Yes | No statement on LFU | 7 (low) |
| Su TB (2009) | ☆ At least somewhat representative of the average HBV-infected pregnant woman | ☆ Drawn from the same community (same inclusion and exclusion criteria also) | Does not provide any details on adherence | ☆ Always the case | ☆ Both HBeAg serostatus and HBV DNA not described. Same regimen for infant immunoprophylaxis | ☆ Testing done centrally in the hospital that study staff worked in | ☆ Yes (always the case) | No statement on LFU | 6 (high) |
| Tang X (2009) | ☆ At least somewhat representative of the average HBV-infected pregnant woman | ☆ Drawn from the same community (same inclusion and exclusion criteria also) | ☆Valid method was used to ascertain adherence to the antiviral therapy (decrease in viral load levels subsequent to the treatment) | ☆ Always the case | ☆☆Same HBeAg serostatus and same thresholds for HBV DNA level. Same regimen for infant immunoprophylaxis at birth | ☆ Laboratory methods described in detail (which assay used), indicating use of a central laboratory and/or record linkage | ☆ Yes | No statement on LFU | 8 (low) |
| Feng HF (2007) | ☆ At least somewhat representative of the average HBV-infected pregnant woman | ☆ Drawn from the same community (same inclusion and exclusion criteria also) | ☆Valid method was used to ascertain adherence to the antiviral therapy (decrease in viral load levels subsequent to the treatment) | ☆ Always the case | ☆☆Same HBeAg serostatus and same thresholds for HBV DNA level. Same regimen for infant immunoprophylaxis at birth | ☆ Laboratory methods described in detail (which assay used), indicating use of a central laboratory and/or record linkage | ☆ Yes | No statement on LFU | 8 (low) |
| Li G (2006) | ☆ At least somewhat representative of the average HBV-infected pregnant woman | ☆ Drawn from the same community (same inclusion and exclusion criteria also) | ☆Valid method was used to ascertain adherence to the antiviral therapy (decrease in viral load levels subsequent to the treatment) | ☆ Always the case | ☆ Comparable HBeAg serostatus but HBV DNA levels not described. Same regimen for infant immunoprophylaxis | ☆ Laboratory assays described | ☆ Yes (always the case) | ☆ LFU reported and <20% LFU in both treatment group and control group | 8 (low) |
| Li WF (2006) | ☆ At least somewhat representative of the average HBV-infected pregnant woman | ☆ Drawn from the same community (same inclusion and exclusion criteria also) | ☆Valid method was used to ascertain adherence to the antiviral therapy (decrease in viral load levels subsequent to the treatment) | ☆ Always the case | ☆☆Same HBeAg serostatus and same thresholds for HBV DNA level. Same regimen for infant immunoprophylaxis at birth | ☆ Laboratory methods described in detail (which assay used), indicating use of a central laboratory and/or record linkage | ☆ Yes | No statement on LFU | 8 (low) |
| Ma J (2006) | ☆ At least somewhat representative of the average HBV-infected pregnant woman | ☆ Drawn from the same community (same inclusion and exclusion criteria also) | ☆Valid method was used to ascertain adherence to the antiviral therapy (decrease in viral load levels subsequent to the treatment) | ☆ Always the case | Comparable HBeAg serostatus but HBV DNA levels not described. Regimen for infant immunoprophylaxis not described | ☆ Laboratory assays described | ☆ Yes (always the case) | No statement on LFU | 6 (high) |
| Han ZH (2005) | ☆ At least somewhat representative of the average HBV-infected pregnant woman | ☆ Drawn from the same community (same inclusion and exclusion criteria also) | ☆Valid method was used to ascertain adherence to the antiviral therapy (decrease in viral load levels subsequent to the treatment) | ☆ Always the case | ☆☆Same HBeAg serostatus and same thresholds for HBV DNA level. Same regimen for infant immunoprophylaxis at birth | ☆ Laboratory methods described in detail (which assay used), indicating use of a central laboratory and/or record linkage | ☆ Yes | No statement on LFU | 8 (low) |
| Wang TM (2005) | ☆ At least somewhat representative of the average HBV-infected pregnant woman | ☆ Drawn from the same community (same inclusion and exclusion criteria also) | ☆Valid method was used to ascertain adherence to the antiviral therapy (decrease in viral load levels subsequent to the treatment) | ☆ Always the case | ☆Same HBeAg serostatus but HBV DNA level not described. Same regimen for infant immunoprophylaxis at birth | No description | ☆ Yes | No statement on LFU | 6 (high) |
