Table 4.
Results of evidence quality.
| Studies | Outcomes | Limitations | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Publicationbias | Relative effect(95% CI) | Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yu [19] | Recovery rate | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | RR 1.55 (1.17, 2.05) | M |
| Effective rate | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | RR 1.15 (1.10,1.21) | M | |
| Efficacy under gastroscope | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | RR 1.21 (1.09, 1.35) | M | |
|
| ||||||||
| Chen [20] | Recurrence rate | −1 | 0 | 0 | −1 | 0 | RR 0.25 (0.09, 0.72) | L |
| Effective rate | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | OR 3.96 (2.96, 5.28) | M | |
| Efficacy under gastroscope | −1 | 0 | 0 | −1 | 0 | OR 1.99 (0.99, 3.65) | L | |
| Adverse events | −1 | −1 | 0 | 0 | −1 | OR 0.26 (0.06, 1.07) | CL | |
|
| ||||||||
| Dai [21] | Effective rate | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | −1 | OR 3.25 (2.15, 4.94) | L |
| Efficacy under gastroscope | −1 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | OR 1.96 (1.21, 3.18) | L | |
| Acid regurgitation | −1 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | SMD 0.51 (-0.90, 1.92) | L | |
| Heartburn | −1 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | SMD -0.68 (-1.25, -0.12) | L | |
| Recurrence rate | −1 | −1 | 0 | −1 | 0 | OR 0.35 (0.11, 1.16) | CL | |
|
| ||||||||
| Zheng [22], 2016 | Effective rate | −1 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | OR 4.16 (2.91,5.59) | L |
| Recurrence rate | −1 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | OR O.27 (0.15,0.48) | L | |
|
| ||||||||
| Qi[23], 2016 | Effective rate | −1 | −1 | 0 | 0 | −1 | OR 3.31 (2.57,4.27) | CL |
| Recovery rate | −1 | −1 | 0 | −1 | −1 | OR 1.88 (1.53, 2.31) | CL | |
|
| ||||||||
| Guo[24], 2015 | Effective rate | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | −1 | OR 3.41 (2.22, 5.23) | L |
| Efficacy under gastroscope | −1 | 0 | 0 | −1 | −1 | OR 1.58 (1.04, 2.41) | CL | |
| Recurrence rate | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | −1 | OR 0.23 (0.14,0.40) | L | |
-1: downgrade; 0: not downgrade; CL: critically low; L : Low; M: moderate; RR: relative risk; OR: odds ratio; SMD : SMD: standardized mean difference.