Table 3

Results of individual datasets

Article

DS

Dichotomous datasets


RR

95% CI

p-value


Oba et al., 2009 [32]

01

1.08

0.40 - 2.96

0.87

Barja-Fidalgo et al., 2009 [33]

02

0.50

0.05 - 5.32

0.57

03

0.38

0.09 - 1.65

0.20

Karlzén-Reuterving and van Dijken, 1995 [20]

04

0.33

0.04 - 3.13

0.34

Arrow and Riordan, 1995 [21]

05

0.19

0.08 - 0.46

0.0002*

Williams et al., 1996 [22]

06

4.75

1.64 - 13.79

0.004**

07

1.38

0.74 - 2.55

0.31

Rock et al., 1996 [23]

08

7.09

0.37 - 136.11

0.19

09

6.04

0.74 - 49.58

0.09

10

7.11

1.65 - 30.66

0.009**

11

6.24

1.89 - 20.66

0.003**

Kerrvanto- Seppälä et al., 2008 [24]

12

3.86

1.69 - 8.79

0.001**

Beiruti et al., 2006 [26]

15

0.33

0.01 - 8.13

0.50

16

0.08

0.00 - 1.42

0.08

17

0.21

0.06 - 0.71

0.01*

18

0.29

0.13 - 0.65

0.003*

19

0.28

0.14 - 0.58

0.0006*

Poulsen et al., 2006 [27]

20

3.40

1.71 - 6.78

0.0005**

21

2.30

1.11 - 4.76

0.02**

Forss and Halme, 19981 [28]

22

1.44

0.81 - 2.55

0.21

Mejàre and Mjör, 1990 [29]

24

0.16

0.01 - 2.73

0.20

25

0.10

0.01 - 2.03

0.14

Boksmann et al., 1987 [30]

26

Not estimable

Poulsen et al., 2001 [31]

27

3.38

1.93 - 5.94

<0.0001**

Forss et al., 19941 [37]

28

Not estimable

Williams and Winter, 1981 [38]

30

0.69

0.51 - 0.92

0.01*

Article

DS

Continuous datasets

MD

95% CI

p-value

Songpaisan et al., 1995 [25]

13

0.43

0.23, 0.63

<0.0001**

14

0.84

0.30, 1.38

0.002**

Forss and Halme, 19981 [28]

23

0.00

-0.11, 0.11

1.00

Forss et al., 19941 [37]

29

-0.04

-0.12, 0.04

0.36


DS = Dataset number; RR = Relative risk; MD = Mean difference; CI = Confidence interval; Not estimable = data from both treatment groups are essentially the same: p = 1.00.

* Statistically significant difference, in favour of GIC

** Statistically significant difference, in favour of Resin

1 Different datasets reported from same trial

Mickenautsch and Yengopal BMC Research Notes 2011 4:22   doi:10.1186/1756-0500-4-22

Open Data