Table 4

Results of individual datasets

Article

DS

RR

95% CI

p-value


Welbury et al., 1991 [20]

01

0.64

0.27 - 1.51

0.31

Östlund et al., 1992 [21]

02

0.73

0.03 - 16.47

0.84

Taifour et al., 2002 [22]

03

0.57

0.24 - 1.36

0.21

04

0.35

0.11 - 1.10

0.07

Mandari et al., 2003 [23]

05

0.18

0.05 - 0.59

0.005*

Frencken et al., 2007 [24]

06

0.52

0.25 - 1.08

0.08

Daou et al., 2009 [25]

07

4.36

0.51 - 37.09

0.18

08

0.91

0.21 - 4.04

0.90

Mandari et al., 2001 [27]

09

0.56

0.25 - 1.24

0.15

Yu et al., 2004 [28]

10

Not estimable

11

Not estimable

Svanberg, 1992 [29]

12

0.14

0.01 - 2.53

0.18

13

0.33

0.12 - 0.91

0.03*

Qvist et al., 1997 [26]

14

0.59

0.28 - 1.25

0.17

15

0.48

0.32 - 0.71

0.0003*

16

0.57

0.38 - 0.87

0.0009*

17

0.91

0.73 - 1.13

0.38


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

* Statistically significant difference, in favour of GIC.

Mickenautsch and Yengopal BMC Research Notes 2011 4:58   doi:10.1186/1756-0500-4-58

Open Data