Skip to main content
. 2010 Dec 21;16(47):5982–5992. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v16.i47.5982

Table 3.

Combination therapy vs sclerotherapy

Study Random- isation Investigator blinding Estimate of sample size Intention to treat analysis Poynard’s quality score (%) Pagliaro’s quality score (%)
Combination therapy vs sclerotherapy
Westaby et al[36] Yes No No No 31 35
Jensen et al[37] Yes Double blinded No No 65 67
Bertoni et al[38] Yes Single blinded No No 54 44
Gerunda et al[39] Yes No No No 19 12
Lundell et al[40] Yes Single blinded No Yes 50 61
Kanazawa et al[32] Yes No No No 19 18
Vinel et al[41] Yes No Yes Yes 73 43
Acharya et al[42] Yes Double blinded Yes Yes 92 96
Avgerinos et al[43] Yes Single blinded Yes Yes 77 83
Villanueva et al[33] Yes No No No 55 67
Vickers et al[44] Yes Single blinded Yes Yes 83 74
Elsayed et al[34] Yes No No No 50 31
Benedeto-Stojanov et al[45] Yes NA NA NA 29 8
Dowidar et al[35] Yes Single blinded No No 54 50
Combination therapy vs banding ligation
Abdel-Rahim et al[46] Yes NA NA NA 8 17
Lo et al[12] Yes Single blinded Yes Yes 81 85
de la Peña et al[13] Yes No Yes No 69 82

NA: Not available.