Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Assessment of study quality for studies included in meta-analysis

From: Effect of garlic on blood pressure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Study ID Randomisation Blinding Outcome measure: Blood pressure Loss of follow up Funding source
Kandziora J 1988 (Study 1), [11] + ++ Primary, Mean of 2 readings each standing + supine Unclear -
Auer et al. 1990, [12] + ++ Primary, Mean standing + supine Unclear -
Vorberg & Schneider 1990, [13] + ++ Primary, Mean standing + supine G: 0%, C: 0% -
Holzgartner et al. 1992, [14] + ++ Secondary, Unclear G: 4.8%; C: 4.8%; T: 4.8% -
Kiesewetter et al. 1993, [15] + ++ Primary, Riva Rocci method G: 20%; C: 20%; T: 20% -
Jain et al. 1993, [16] + ++ Primary, Mean of 2 readings after 10 min rest; standard technique (JNC 1988) Unclear Industry grant
Saradeth et al. 1994, [17] + ++ Primary, Riva Rocci method G: 2.8%; C: 8.3%; T: 5.6% -
Simons et al. 1995, [18] + ++ Primary, Mean of 2 readings after 5 min rest, phase V diastolic BP T: 9.7% Industry grant
Steiner et al. 1996, [19] parallel arm + ++ Primary, Unclear, manual T: 21.2% -
Adler & Holub 1997, [20] + ++ Primary, Sitting digital T: 8% Heart & Stroke Foundation
Zhang et al. 2000, [21] + ++ Primary, Over 10–30 min until repeated low values were obtained, means of 3 lowest pulse rates + associated BP values G: 6.7%; C: 13.3%; T: 10% Industry grant
  1. +: adequate; ++: double blinding; -: not provided