Table 2.
Quality of evidence based on GRADE.
| Outcome Indicators (No. of Comparisons) | Result Summary | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of Participants | Effect Measurement (95% CI) | Quality of Evidence | |||
| Intervention Group | Control Group | Relative Effect |
Absolute Effect | ||
| Acupuncture plus COH therapy plus COH therapy | |||||
| CPR (2 comparisons of 2 RCTs) |
58 | 54 | RR 1.59 (0.80, 3.17) |
– | ⊕⊕○○ Low a, d |
| Fertilization rate (7 comparisons of 7 RCTs) |
– | – | Not estimate |
– | ⊕⊕⊕○ Moderate a |
| Implantation rate (2 comparisons of 2 RCTs) |
60 | 56 | RR 2.13 (1.08, 4.21) |
– | ⊕⊕○○ Low a, d |
| Cycle cancellation rate (4 comparisons of 4 RCTs) |
– | – | Not estimate |
– | ⊕○○○ Very Low a, c, d |
| High-quality embryo rate (6 comparisons of 6 RCTs) |
– | – | Not estimate |
– | ⊕⊕○○ Low a, d |
| Miscarriage rate (1comparisons of 1 RCT) |
30 | 30 | RR 0.67 (0.20, 2.26) |
– | ⊕○○○ Very Low a, c, d |
| Number of oocytes retrieved (7 comparisons of 7 RCTs) |
238 | 249 | – | MD 1.02 (0.72, 1.32) |
⊕⊕○○ Low a, b |
| FSH (4 comparisons of 4 RCTs) |
157 | 164 | – | MD -1.52 (-2.41, -0.62) |
⊕○○○ Very Low a, b, c |
| LH (5 comparisons of 5 RCTs) |
– | – | – | Not estimate |
⊕○○○ Very Low a, b, c |
| E2
(3 comparisons of 3 RCTs) |
93 | 89 | – | MD 1667.80 (1578.29, 1757.31) |
⊕○○○ Very Low a, b, c, d |
| AFC (3 comparisons of 3 RCTs) |
90 | 97 | – | MD 1.49 (1.04, 1.95) |
⊕⊕○○ Low a, b |
| AMH (1comparisons of 1 RCT) |
8 | 10 | – | MD 0.08 (-0.29, 0.45) |
⊕⊕○○ Low a, d |
| Dose of Gn (3 comparisons of 3 RCTs) |
122 | 129 | – | MD -19.68 (-164.22, 124.87) |
⊕○○○ Very Low a, c, d |
| Duration of Gn (3 comparisons of 3 RCTs) |
122 | 129 | – | MD 0.47 (-0.00, 0.94) |
⊕⊕○○ Low a, c |
| Thickness of endometrium (3 comparisons of 3 RCTs) |
110 | 115 | – | MD 0.54 (0.13, 0.96) |
⊕⊕○○ Low a, c |
a
Download one level for serious risk of bias: included studies that did not conduct the blinding method, and unclear risk of bias in one or two domains. Downgraded one level for serious inconsistency: interventions of included studies inconsistent, or the outcome indicators exist statistical heterogeneous. Downgraded one level for serious indirectness: this outcome index cannot directly represent the therapeutic effect of acupuncture on POR patients. Downgraded one level for serious imprecision: very small sample size.