Table 6.
Results of evidence quality.
| Author, year (country) | Outcomes | Studies (participants) | Limitations | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Publication bias | Relative effect (95% CI) | Heterogeneity | Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saurabh Chandan, 2020(USA) [20] | Clinical remission rate | 5 (282) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1④ | OR: 2.9 (95% CI: 1.5, 5.5)∗ | I2 = 45% | Moderate |
| Clinical improvement rate | 5 (255) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1④ | OR: 2.6 (95% CI: 1.5, 4.5)∗ | I2 = 74% | Moderate | |
| Summary rate of endoscopic improvement and remission | 5 (235) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1④ | OR: 2.3 (95% CI: 1.2, 4.6)∗ | I2 = 35.5% | Moderate | |
| Armin Ebrahimzadeh, 2021(Iran) [21] | CRP | 1 (63) | 0 | -1② | 0 | -1③ | -1④ | WMD: -0.15 (95% CI: -0.28, -0.02)∗ | NA | Very low |
| ESR | 2 (104) | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1③ | -1④ | WMD: -6.92 (95% CI: -11.83, -2)∗ | I2 = 59.3% | Low | |
| Ricardo de Alvares Goulart, 2020(Brazil) [22] | Clinical remission rate | 3 (182) | 0 | -1② | 0 | -1③ | -1④ | RD: 0.31 (95% CI: 0.02, 0.60)∗ | I2 = 82% | Very low |
| Clinical improvement rate | 3 (182) | 0 | -1② | 0 | -1③ | -1④ | RD: 0.24 (95% CI: -0.15, 0.63) | I2 = 90% | Very low | |
| Umair Iqbal, 2018(USA) [23] | Clinical remission rate | 2 (95) | 0 | -1② | 0 | -1③ | 0 | OR: 6.78 (95% CI: 2.39, 19.23)∗ | I2 = 75.9% | Low |
| Clinical improvement rate | 3 (142) | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1③ | 0 | OR: 4.65 (95% CI: 2.18, 9.92)∗ | I2 = 40.7% | Moderate | |
| Endoscopic improvement rate | 2 (95) | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1③ | 0 | OR: 3.82 (95% CI: 1.40, 10.40)∗ | I2 = 63.7% | Moderate | |
| Endoscopic remission rate | 2 (102) | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1③ | 0 | OR: 12.74 (95% CI: 1.56, 104.07)∗ | I2 = 0% | Moderate | |
| Maria G. Grammatikopoulou, 2018(Greece) [24] | Clinical remission rate | 3 (201) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1⑤ | OR: 3.80 (95% CI: 0.55,26.28) | I2 = 63.7% | Moderate |
| Ting Zheng, 2020(China) [25] | Clinical remission rate | 4 (198) | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1③ | 0 | OR:5.18 (95% CI: 1.84, 14.56)∗ | I2 = 33% | Moderate |
| Endoscopic remission rate | 3 (121) | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1③ | -1⑤ | OR: 5.69 (95% CI:1.28, 25.27)∗ | I2 = 28% | Low | |
| Clinical improvement rate | 4 (158) | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1③ | 0 | OR:4.79 (95% CI: 1.02, 22.43)∗ | I2 = 75% | Moderate | |
| Endoscopic improvement rate | 2 (71) | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1③ | 0 | OR:17.05 (95% CI:: 1.30, 233.00)∗ | I2 = 57% | Moderate | |
| Liwei Zhu, 2019(China) [26] | Clinical remission rate | 3 (181) | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1③ | -1④ | OR: 4.78 (95% CI:1.24, 18.47)∗ | I2 = 52% | Low |
| Clinical improvement rate | 3 (142) | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1③ | -1④ | OR: 4.61 (95% CI:2.22, 9.57)∗ | I2 = 28% | Low | |
| Endoscopic remission rate | 3 (142) | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1③ | -1④ | OR: 4.58 (95% CI:1.79, 11.73)∗ | I2 = 49% | Low |
Note: ①The included studies have a large bias in methodology such as randomization, allocation concealment, and blinding. ②The confidence interval overlaps less or the I2 value of the combined results was larger. ③The sample size from the included studies does not meet the optimal sample size or the 95% confidence interval crosses the invalid line. ④The funnel chart is asymmetry. ⑤Few studies were included, and their results were all positive, which may result in a large publication bias; ∗The 95% confidence interval does not cross the invalid line.