A Methodological and Reporting Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses about Chinese Medical Treatment for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Table 5

GRADE evidence profile.

No. of studies	Study design	Risk of bias	Inconsistency	Indirectness	Imprecision	Other considerations	Impact	Certainty	Importance
First author: J.S. Song
10	Randomized trials	Serious	Serious	Serious	Serious	Publication bias strongly suspected	Most information was obtained from studies with a high risk of bias.	⨁◯◯◯; Very low	Not important
First author: L. Yang
25	Randomized trials	Serious	Not serious	Not serious	Serious	Publication bias strongly suspected; Strong associations of all plausible residual confounding could reduce the demonstrated effect	Most information was obtained from studies with a low or unclear risk of bias, without direct evidence of the outcome.	⨁⨁◯◯; Low	Not important
First author: S.W. Chen
13	Randomized trials	Serious	Serious	Not serious	Serious	Publication bias strongly suspected	Most information was obtained from studies with a high risk of bias.	⨁◯◯◯; Very low	Not important
First author: C.H. Sun
14	Randomized trials	Serious	Very serious	Serious	Serious	Publication bias strongly suspected	Most information was obtained from studies with a high risk of bias.	⨁◯◯◯; Very low	Not important
First author: M. Zhang
11	Randomized trials	Serious	Not serious	Not serious	Serious	Publication bias strongly suspected; Strong associations of all plausible residual confounding could reduce the demonstrated effect	Most information was obtained from studies with a low or unclear risk of bias, without direct evidence of the outcome.	⨁⨁◯◯; Low	Not important
First author: Y.Q. Wang
29	Randomized trials	Serious	Not serious	Not serious	Serious	Publication bias strongly suspected; Strong associations of all plausible residual confounding could reduce the demonstrated effect	Most information was obtained from studies with a low or unclear risk of bias, without direct evidence of the outcome.	⨁⨁◯◯; Low	Not important
First author: Y.J. Li
11	Randomized trials	Serious	Serious	Serious	Serious	Publication bias strongly suspected	Most information was obtained from studies with a high risk of bias.	⨁◯◯◯; Very low	Not important
First author: Y.Q. Fei
10	Randomized trials	Serious	Serious	Serious	Serious	Publication bias strongly suspected	Most information was obtained from studies with a high risk of bias.	⨁◯◯◯; Very low	Not important
First author: Z.L. Guo
12	Randomized trials	Serious	Serious	Not serious	Serious	Publication bias strongly suspected	Most information was obtained from studies with a high risk of bias.	⨁◯◯◯; Very low	Not important
First author: W. Ling
33	Randomized trials	Not serious	Not serious	Not serious	Not serious	Publication bias strongly suspected; Strong associations of all plausible residual confounding could reduce the demonstrated effect	Heterogeneity analysis of one subgroup showed that there was obvious statistical heterogeneity among the studies (, ).	⨁⨁⨁◯; Moderate	Important
First author: M. Zheng
34	Randomized trials	Serious	Not serious	Not serious	Serious	Publication bias strongly suspected; Strong associations of all plausible residual confounding could reduce the demonstrated effect	Most information was obtained from studies with a low or unclear risk of bias, without direct evidence of the outcome.	⨁⨁◯◯; Low	Not important
First author: M. Zheng
11	Randomized trials	Serious	Not serious	Not serious	Serious	Publication bias strongly suspected; Strong associations of all plausible residual confounding could reduce the demonstrated effect	Most information was obtained from studies with a low or unclear risk of bias, without direct evidence of the outcome.	⨁⨁◯◯; Low	Not important
First author: Y.H. Guo
6	Randomized trials	Serious	Serious	Serious	Serious	Publication bias strongly suspected	Most information was obtained from studies with a high risk of bias.	⨁◯◯◯; Very low	Not important
First author: J.J. Zhu
30	Randomized trials	Serious	Not serious	Not serious	Serious	Publication bias strongly suspected; Strong associations of all plausible residual confounding could reduce the demonstrated effect	Most information was obtained from studies with a low or unclear risk of bias, without direct evidence of the outcome.	⨁⨁◯◯; Low	Not important
First author: H.K. Ghung
11	Randomized trials	Serious	Not serious	Not serious	Serious	Publication bias strongly suspected; Strong associations of all plausible residual confounding could reduce the demonstrated effect	The true effect may be substantially different from the estimated effect.	⨁⨁◯◯; Low	Not important
First author: J.K. Chen
26	Randomized trials	Serious	Serious	Serious	Serious	Publication bias strongly suspected	Most information was obtained from studies with a high risk of bias.	⨁◯◯◯; Very low	Not important
First author: K.H. Chen
9	Randomized trials	Serious	Serious	Serious	Serious	Publication bias strongly suspected	Most information was obtained from studies with a high risk of bias.	⨁◯◯◯; Very low	Not important
First author: Y.K. Dai
12	Randomized trials	Serious	Not serious	Not serious	Serious	Publication bias strongly suspected; Strong associations of all plausible residual confounding could reduce the demonstrated effect	Most information was obtained from studies with a low or unclear risk of bias, without direct evidence of the outcome.	⨁⨁◯◯; Low	Not important
First author: G.Y. Li
18	Randomized trials	Serious	Serious	Serious	Serious	Publication bias strongly suspected	Most information was obtained from studies with a high risk of bias.	⨁◯◯◯; Very low	Not important
First author: J.R. Xie
14	Randomized trials	Serious	Serious	Serious	Serious	Publication bias strongly suspected	Most information was obtained from studies with a high risk of bias.	⨁◯◯◯; Very low	Not important
First author: J. Xiao
14	Randomized trials	Serious	Not serious	Not serious	Serious	Publication bias strongly suspected; Strong associations of all plausible residual confounding could reduce the demonstrated effect	Most information was obtained from studies with a low or unclear risk of bias, without direct evidence of the outcome.	⨁⨁◯◯; Low	Not important
First author: J.J Zhu
12	Randomized trials	Serious	Not serious	Not serious	Serious	Publication bias strongly suspected; Strong associations of all plausible residual confounding could reduce the demonstrated effect	Most information was obtained from studies with a low or unclear risk of bias, without direct evidence of the outcome.	⨁⨁◯◯; Low	Not important
First author: L.Q. Li
16	Randomized trials	Serious	Serious	Serious	Serious	Publication bias strongly suspected	Most information was obtained from studies with a high risk of bias.	⨁◯◯◯; Very low	Not important
First author: S. Xie
21	Randomized trials	Serious	Not serious	Not serious	Serious	Publication bias strongly suspected; Strong associations of all plausible residual confounding could reduce the demonstrated effect	The true effect may be substantially different from the estimated effect.	⨁⨁◯◯; Low	Not important
First author: X. Fu
10	Randomized trials	Serious	Not serious	Not serious	Serious	Publication bias strongly suspected; Strong associations of all plausible residual confounding could reduce the demonstrated effect	Most information was obtained from studies with a low or unclear risk of bias, without direct evidence of the outcome.	⨁⨁◯◯; Low	Not important
First author: J.F. Li
11	Randomized trials	Serious	Serious	Serious	Serious	Publication bias strongly suspected	Most information was obtained from studies with a high risk of bias.	⨁◯◯◯; Very low	Not important
First author: Q.Z. Song
18	Randomized trials	Serious	Not serious	Not serious	Serious	Publication bias strongly suspected; Strong associations of all plausible residual confounding could reduce the demonstrated effect	Most information was obtained from studies with a low or unclear risk of bias, without direct evidence of the outcome.	⨁⨁◯◯; Low	Not important
First author: X.H. Wu
26	Randomized trials	Serious	Serious	Serious	Serious	Publication bias strongly suspected	Most information was obtained from studies with a high risk of bias.	⨁◯◯◯; Very low	Not important
First author: K.M. Xiao
26	Randomized trials	Serious	Serious	Serious	Serious	Publication bias strongly suspected	Most information was obtained from studies with a high risk of bias.	⨁◯◯◯; Very low	Not important
First author: Q.Z. Song
26	Randomized trials	Serious	Not serious	Not serious	Serious	Publication bias strongly suspected; Strong associations of all plausible residual confounding could reduce the demonstrated effect	The true effect may be substantially different from the estimated effect.	⨁⨁◯◯; Low	Not important
First author: J. Li
7	Randomized trials	Serious	Serious	Serious	Serious	Publication bias strongly suspected	Most information was obtained from studies with a high risk of bias.	⨁◯◯◯; Very low	Not important
First author: S.W. Li
13	Randomized trials	Not serious	Not serious	Not serious	Not serious	Publication bias strongly suspected; Strong associations of all plausible residual confounding could reduce the demonstrated effect	Lack of blinding biased the estimates of the treatment effect.	⨁⨁⨁◯; Moderate	Important