Table 1.
Results from meta-analyses comparing band ligation with other interventions in terms of all-cause related rebleeding, variceal rebleeding, all-cause related mortality, bleeding related mortality and complication rates
| Study (reference) | Publication year | Country | Method | Number of studies | Number of patients | All-cause related rebleeding RR or OR/CI/I2 | Variceal rebleeding RR or OR/CI /I2 | All-cause related mortality RR or OR/CI /I2 | Bleeding related mortality RR or OR/CI/I2 | Complications RR or OR/CI/I2 |
| Singh et al[16] | 2002 | United States | EBL vs EST + EBL | 7 | 453 | NR | 1.12/ 0.69-1.81/ NR | NR | 1.1/ 0.70-1.74/ NR | 0.37/ 0.21-0.62/ NR |
| Karsan et al[22] | 2005 | United States | EBL vs EST + EBL | 8 | 520 | NR | 1.05/ 0.67-1.64/ NS | 0.99/ 0.68-1.44/ NS | NR | NR |
| 1Gonzalez et al[15] | 2008 | Spain | 2Combination therapy vs EBL | 4 | 404 | 0.62/ 0.44-0.87/ 40% | NR | 0.79/ 0.44-1.43/ 54% | NR | NR |
| Cheung et al[17] | 2009 | Canada | EBL vs PT | 6 | 698 | 0.96/ 0.73-1.30/ 62% | NR/ NR/ 79% | 1.20/ 0.92-1.57/ 0 | NR | 0.90/ 0.70-1.15/ 0 |
| EBL+PT vs EBL | 4 | 404 | 0.57/ 0.31-1.08/ 60% | 0.38/ 0.19-0.76/ 0 | 0.90/ 0.41-1.98/ 45% | 3.4/ 1.4-8.2/ 74% | ||||
| EBL+PT vs PT | 2 | 279 | 0.76/ 0.56-1.03/ 0 | 0.58/ 0.40-0.85/ 0 | 0.94/ 0.54-1.63/ 31% | NR | ||||
| Ding et al[13] | 2009 | China | β-blockers + ISMN vs EBL | 4 | 476 | 0.94/ 0.64-1.38 71.50% | NR | 0.81/ 0.61-1.08/ 0 | 0.76/ 0.31-1.42/ 38.90% | 1.26/ 0.93-1.70/ 42.70% |
| 1Funakoshi et al[14] | 2010 | France | EBL vs EBL + β-blockers | 3 | 252 | 3.16/ 1.76-5.34/ 0 | NR | 1.78/ 0.92-3.43/ 0 | NR | NR |
| Li et al[18] | 2011 | China | EBL vs β-blockers + ISMN | 6 | 687 | 0.95/ 0.65-1.40/ NR | 0.89/ 0.53-1.49/ NR | 1.25/ 1.01-1.55/ NR | 1.16/ 0.68-1.97/ NR | NR |
| Thiele et al[19] | 2012 | Denmark | 3EBL+PT vs monotherapy | 9 | 955 | 0.68/ 0.54-0.85/ 1% | 0.67/ 0.54-0.84/0 | 0.89/ 0.65-1.21/ 0 | 0.52/ 0.27-0.99/ NR | 1.42/ 0.94-2.13/ 69% |
| Ko et al[21] | 2012 | South Korea | EBL + β-blockers vs β-blockers | 4 | 409 | 0.78/ 0.58-1.04/ NR | 0.60/ 0.41-0.88/ NR | 1.21/ 0.88-1.65/ NR | ||
| Dai et al[20] | 2015 | China | EBL vs EST | 14 | 1236 | 0.68/ 0.57-0.81/ 9.00% | NR | 0.95/ 0.77-1.17/ 32.80% | NR | 0.28/ 0.13-0.58/ 86.50% |
| Albillos et al[23] | 2017 | Spain | EBL + β-blockers vs EBL | 4 | 416 | 0.36/ 0.21-0.59/ NR | 0.52/ 0.25-1.11/ NR | 0.50/ 0.28-0.89/ NR | NR | NR |
| EBL + β-blockers vs β-blockers | 3 | 389 | 1.0/ 0.68-1.47/ NR | 0.81/ 0.53-1.23/ NR | 1.19/ 0.76-1.87/ NR |
These results represent a subgroup analysis of the examined meta-analysis;
The term combination therapy includes endoscopic therapy combined with injection sclerotherapy or band ligation combined with drug therapy (β-blockers); 3The term monotherapy includes endoscopic band ligation alone or medical therapy alone (β-blockers alone or combined with ISMN). RR: Risk ratio; OR: Odds ratio; CI: Confidence interval; I2: Study heterogeneity; EBL: Endoscopic band ligation; EST: Endoscopic sclerotherapy; NR: Not reported; NS: Nonsignificant; PT: Pharmacotherapy; ISMN: Isosorbide mononitrate.