Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Not stated in three studies.
Not stated in two studies. ¶Not stated in two studies. **Not stated in four studies.
* 1=normal gut on endoscopy for all participants; 2=some participants have a normal gut on endoscopy, others have some erosions or haemorrhages, but no frank uclers; 3=all participants have some abnormal symptoms on baseline endoscopy (no ulcers or up to 50% recently healed ulcers); 4=all participants have recently healed ulcers on baseline endoscopy (at least 50% recently healed ulcers); 5=no baseline endoscopy, or no gut status reported; 6=mix, from normal gut on endoscopy to frank ulcers.
Based on assessment of allocation concealment and baseline comparability. If either or both criteria were classed as "inadequate" the summary risk of bias was judged "high," if either or both criteria were "unclear" then summary risk of bias was "moderate," and if both criteria were "adequate" the summary risk of bias was "low."