Table 2.
The outcome of the meta-analysis.
| Outcomes | Number | T/C | End of treatment | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WMD/RR/SMD | 95%CI | Heterogeneity | P -value | F/R | GRADE | |||
| Ginger vs. placebo | ||||||||
| VAS | 3 | 88/100 | WMD = −1.21 | (−2.34)–(−0.08) | 66.0% | P = 0.036 | R | Low |
| Adverse events | 3 | 112/116 | RR = 1.57 | (0.63)–(3.91) | 0.0% | P = 0.336 | R | Very low |
| Number of vomiting | 2 | 56/65 | WMD = 0.05 | (−0.23)–(0.32) | 0.0% | P = 0.743 | R | Low |
| Effective rate | 3 | 96/100 | RR = 1.68 | (1.09)–(2.57) | 76.4% | P = 0.018 | R | Low |
| Ginger vs. CM | ||||||||
| Number of vomiting | 3 | 87/95 | SMD = 0.30 | (−0.12)–(0.73) | 51.1% | P = 0.160 | R | Low |
| Rhodes index | 2 | 62/60 | WMD = −0.52 | (−0.79)–(−0.24) | 0.0% | P ≤ 0.001 | R | Moderate |
| Adverse events | 4 | 76/77 | RR = 0.21 | (0.05)–(0.96) | 87.2% | P = 0.045 | R | Low |
| AP vs. placebo | ||||||||
| Effective rate | 6 | 429/420 | RR = 1.25 | (0.94)–(1.65) | 88.0% | P = 0.124 | R | Low |
| AP vs. CM | ||||||||
| Effective rate | 3 | 105/105 | RR = 1.55 | (1.30)–(1.86) | 0.0% | P ≤ 0.001 | R | Low |
| Number of anti-emetic drug | 2 | 75/76 | SMD = −0.44 | (−0.77)–(−0.11) | 0.0% | P = 0.008 | R | Low |
| AT vs. CM | ||||||||
| Effective rate | 3 | 115/115 | RR = 1.71 | (1.02)–(2.86) | 80.8% | P = 0.042 | R | Low |
WMD, weighted mean difference; SMD, standard mean difference; RR, risk ratio; CI, confidence interval; VAS, visual analog scale; P, P-value represents clinical significance; CM, conventional medicine; AP, acupressure treatment; AT, acupuncture treatment; T, test group; C, control group; F, Fixed effects model; R, Random effects model; GRADE, Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; Very low, very low quality; Low, low quality; Moderate, Moderate quality.
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.