Table 1 Quality of randomised clinical trials to compare effectiveness of hemoclips.
| Trial | Publication type | Comparison | N | Age (mean) | Gender (male%) | Study duration (weeks) | Adjuvant PPI | Quality score (1–5) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hemoclips versus injection | ||||||||
| Simoens, 199710 | Abstract | Hemoclips (n = 9) vs epinephrine + polidocanol (n = 9) | 18 | NA | NA | NA | No | 1 |
| Chung, 199911 | Full‐text | Hemoclips (n = 41) vs hypertonic saline‐epinephrine (n = 41) | 82 | 56.2 | 41% | 1 | No | 3 |
| Chung, 200012 | Full‐text | Hemoclips (n = 9) vs hypertonic saline‐epinephrine (n = 12) | 21 | 53.2 | 38% | 1 | No | 5 |
| Gevers, 200213 | Full‐text | Hemoclips (n = 35) vs epinephrine + polidocanol (n = 34) | 69 | 65.5 | NA | 4 | No | 5 |
| Park, 200314 | Full‐text | Hemoclips (n = 16) vs isotonic saline (n = 16) | 32 | 61.1 | 38% | 1 | No | 3 |
| Chou, 200315 | Full‐text | Hemoclips (n = 39) vs distilled water (n = 40) | 79 | 64.0 | 39% | 8 | No | 4 |
| Shimoda, 200316 | Full‐text | Hemoclips (n = 42) vs absolute ethanol (n = 42) | 84 | 58.8 | 35% | 8 | Yes | 3 |
| Ljubicic, 200417 | Full‐text | Hemoclips (n = 31) vs polidocanol (n = 30) | 61 | 61.1 | 31% | <1 | Yes | 2 |
| Hemoclips + injection versus injection | ||||||||
| Villanueva, 199618 | Abstract | Hemoclips + epinephrine (n = 42) vs epinephrine (n = 37) | 79 | NA | NA | NA | Yes | 1 |
| Simoens, 199710 | Abstract | Hemoclips + epinephrine‐polidocanol (n = 9) vs epinephrine‐polidocanol (n = 9) | 18 | NA | NA | NA | No | 1 |
| Chung, 199911 | Full‐text | Hemoclips + hypertonic saline‐epinephrine (n = 41) vs hypertonic saline‐epinephrine (n = 41) | 82 | 56.2 | 41% | 1 | No | 3 |
| Gevers, 200213 | Full‐text | Hemoclips + epinephrine + polidocanol (n = 32) vs epinephrine + polidocanol (n = 34) | 66 | 65.5 | NA | 4 | No | 5 |
| Shimoda, 200316 | Full‐text | Hemoclips + absolute ethanol (n = 42) vs absolute ethanol (n = 42) | 84 | 58.8 | 35% | 8 | Yes | 3 |
| Park, 200419 | Full‐text | Hemoclips + epinephrine (n = 23) vs epinephrine (n = 45) | 68 | 62.0 | 43% | 1 | Yes | 5 |
| Lo, 200620 | Full‐text | Hemoclips + epinephrine (n = 52) vs epinephrine (n = 53) | 105 | 63.5 | 38% | 8 | Yes | 5 |
| Hemoclips versus thermocoagulation | ||||||||
| Cipolletta, 200121 | Full‐text | Hemoclips (n = 56) vs heater probe (n = 57) | 113 | 58.0 | 26% | 4 | Yes | 5 |
| Lin, 200222 | Full‐text | Hemoclips (n = 40) vs heater probe (n = 40) | 80 | 65.9 | 44% | 2 | Yes | 5 |
| Lin, 200323 | Full‐text | Hemoclips (n = 46) vs heater probe + epinephrine (n = 47) | 93 | 65.8 | 40% | 2 | Yes | 5 |
| Saltzman, 200524 | Full‐text | Hemoclips (n = 26) vs bipolar electrocautery probe + epinephrine (n = 21) | 47 | 65.1 | 36% | 8 | Yes | 5 |
NA, Not available in the content of the study; PPI, proton pump inhibitor.