Table 3.

Results of individual datasets

Article	DS	Dichotomous datasets
		RR	95% CI	p-value
Oba et al., 2009 [32]	01	1.08	0.40 - 2.96	0.87
Barja-Fidalgo et al., 2009 [33]	02	0.50	0.05 - 5.32	0.57
	03	0.38	0.09 - 1.65	0.20
Karlzén-Reuterving and van Dijken, 1995 [20]	04	0.33	0.04 - 3.13	0.34
Arrow and Riordan, 1995 [21]	05	0.19	0.08 - 0.46	0.0002*
Williams et al., 1996 [22]	06	4.75	1.64 - 13.79	0.004**
	07	1.38	0.74 - 2.55	0.31
Rock et al., 1996 [23]	08	7.09	0.37 - 136.11	0.19
	09	6.04	0.74 - 49.58	0.09
	10	7.11	1.65 - 30.66	0.009**
	11	6.24	1.89 - 20.66	0.003**
Kerrvanto- Seppälä et al., 2008 [24]	12	3.86	1.69 - 8.79	0.001**
Beiruti et al., 2006 [26]	15	0.33	0.01 - 8.13	0.50
	16	0.08	0.00 - 1.42	0.08
	17	0.21	0.06 - 0.71	0.01*
	18	0.29	0.13 - 0.65	0.003*
	19	0.28	0.14 - 0.58	0.0006*
Poulsen et al., 2006 [27]	20	3.40	1.71 - 6.78	0.0005**
	21	2.30	1.11 - 4.76	0.02**
Forss and Halme, 19981 [28]	22	1.44	0.81 - 2.55	0.21
Mejàre and Mjör, 1990 [29]	24	0.16	0.01 - 2.73	0.20
	25	0.10	0.01 - 2.03	0.14
Boksmann et al., 1987 [30]	26	Not estimable
Poulsen et al., 2001 [31]	27	3.38	1.93 - 5.94	<0.0001**
Forss et al., 19941 [37]	28	Not estimable
Williams and Winter, 1981 [38]	30	0.69	0.51 - 0.92	0.01*
Article	DS	Continuous datasets
		MD	95% CI	p-value
Songpaisan et al., 1995 [25]	13	0.43	0.23, 0.63	<0.0001**
	14	0.84	0.30, 1.38	0.002**
Forss and Halme, 19981 [28]	23	0.00	-0.11, 0.11	1.00
Forss et al., 19941 [37]	29	-0.04	-0.12, 0.04	0.36

DS = Dataset number; RR = Relative risk; MD = Mean difference; CI = Confidence interval; Not estimable = data from both treatment groups are essentially the same: p = 1.00.

* Statistically significant difference, in favour of GIC

** Statistically significant difference, in favour of Resin

¹ Different datasets reported from same trial