Skip to main content

Advertisement

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