Skip to main content
. 2019 Oct 21;25(39):6025–6040. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i39.6025

Table 7.

Results of quality assessment

Participants (stud-ies) Risk of bias Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Publication bias Overall quality of evidence
Eradication rate
867(8 studies) Very serious1 No serious inconsistency Serious2 No serious imprecision Undetected Very low12
Healing rate of ulcers
807(7 studies) Very serious1 No serious inconsistency No serious indirectness No serious imprecision Undetected Low1
Total remission rate of ulcers
807(7 studies) Very serious1 No serious inconsistency No serious indirectness No serious imprecision Undetected Low1
Side effect rate
549(5 studies) Very serious1 No serious inconsistency Serious3 No serious imprecision Undetected Very low13
1

We downgraded by two levels because all included studies did not state random method although declared to be randomized. What's more, blinding of patients was not mentioned in all included studies and we preferred to identify these studies as non-blindness;

2

The present systematic review mainly aimed to assess the efficacy with eradication rate as primary outcome in patients with H. pylori infection. However, the participants of seven included studies (7/8, 87.50%) included patients with H. pylori infection combined with peptic ulcers. Such difference might be another origin of bias;

3

The present systematic review mainly aimed to assess the safety of allicin among patients with H. pylori infection. However, four included studies (4/5, 80.00%) included patients with H. pylori infection combined with peptic ulcers. Such difference might be another origin of bias.