Liou 2014.

Methods	Randomised, open‐label, multicentre trial Dates the study was conducted: from February 2012 to April 2013 Funding sources and potential conflicts of interest: no information reported Definition of compliance: not reported
Participants	Number and type of participants: 1088 H.pylori‐positive participants were enrolled in the study Participants were randomised to 2 different treatment groups: 14‐day standard triple regimen and 10‐day sequential regimen Number of participants randomised: 840 (ITT sample) Number of participants in the 14‐day STT arm, ITT analysis: 424 Number of participants in the 10‐day SEQ arm, ITT analysis: 416 Number of participants in the 14‐day STT arm, PP analysis: 407 Number of participants in the 10‐day SEQ arm, PP analysis: 401 Country: China Average age (SD) of the population in years: not reported but authors mentioned they included adults Sex (M/F) by treatment group: not reported Medical condition (PUD participants) at baseline as number of participants (%): not reported Baseline resistance for antibiotic were performed using minimum inhibition concentrations determined by agar dilution test. 23S rRNA mutation was detected by PCR followed by direct sequencing H. pylori diagnostic methods in both treatment arms: not reported, but it was assumed method used was the same as in Liou 2013
Interventions	Name, dose timing of antibiotics in 14‐day STT: not reported Name, dose timing of antibiotics in 10‐day SEQ: not reported It was assumed authors used same antibiotics, PPIs and doses as in Liou 2013. However we decided not to include these data in the subgroup analysis by PPI and nitroimidazole types, for consistency with remaining included studies. Sensitivity test (yes/no) to antibiotics before/after treatment: Yes. Method of assessment of H. pylori status after treatment: Not reported; we contacted authors but not reached. For our purposes we assumed methods used were the same as in Liou 2013 Time for assessment of H. pylori status after treatment: Not reported; we contacted authors but not reached. For our purposes we assumed methods used were the same as in Liou 2013
Outcomes	ITT eradication rate (%) by treatment group: 14‐day STT: 367/424 (86.6) 10‐day SEQ: 367/416 (88.2) PP eradication rate (%) by treatment group: 14‐day STT: 367/407 (90.2) 10‐day SEQ: 367/401 (91.5) Incidence (%) of AEs in the 10‐day SEQ/14‐day STT arms respectively: not reported Adverse events or serious adverse events were not reported
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer‐generated sequence
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Authors state the sequence was randomly allocated but did not specify if it was concealed
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Primary outcomes are reported clearly. However, efficacy data regarding antimicrobial resistance are missing
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No reported
Publication format	High risk	Abstract