Skip to main content

Table 3 Assessment of study quality for studies excluded from 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

Lutomski 1984, [22]

+

++

Primary, Unclear

G: 13.7%; C: 25.5%; T: 20.4%

-

Barrie et al. 1987, [23]

+

++

Primary, Mean bilateral

Unclear

Industry grant

Harenberg et al. 1988, [24]

No (simple intervention)

Open label

Primary, Unclear

None

-

Kandziora J. 1988 (Study 2), [25]

+

+ Observer blinded

Primary, Mean of 2 readings each standing + supine

Unclear

-

Kiesewetter et al. 1991, [26]

Unclear

++

Unclear

Unclear

-

DeASantos & Gruenwald 1993, [27]

+

++

Primary, Unclear

G: 16.7%; C: 10%; T: 13.3%

Industry grant

DeASantos & Johns 1995, [28]

+

Open label

Primary, Average of 3 readings

G: 10%; C: 15%; T: 12.5%

-

Czerny & Samochowiek 1996, [29]

+

++

Primary, Unclear (after 15 min exercise)

Unclear

-

Mansell et al. 1996, [30]

+

Unclear

Primary, Unclear

Unclear

-

Steiner et al. 1996, [19] crossover arm

+

++

Primary, Unclear, manual

T: 21.2%

-

McCrindle et al. 1998, [31]

+

++

Primary, Unclear

No drop-outs

-

Durak et al. 2004, [32]

No (hypertensive/nomotensive)

Open label

Unclear

Unclear

-

Turner et al. 2004, [33]

+

++

Secondary, Mean of 2 readings after 10 min rest

G: 6.1%; C: 5.9%; T: 6.0%

Industry grant

Dhawan & Jain 2004, [34]

Unclear (hypertensives/normotensives)

++

Primary, As per JNC VI recommendations 2× after 10 min rest DBP determined as Korotkoff phase V

No drop-outs

Council of Medical Research grant

Jabbari et al. 2005, [35]

+

Open

Primary, Unclear

G: 12%; C: 12%; T: 12%

-

  1. +: adequate; ++: double blinding; -: not provided; JNC: Joint National Committee