Table 4.
The evidence quality of total glucosides of paeony.
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) |
No of Participants (studies) |
Quality of the evidence (GRADE) |
Comments | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Control | Total glucosides of paeony | |||||
| DAS28 | The mean DAS28 in the intervention groups was 0.92 lower (1.52 to 0.31 lower) |
1146 (9 studies) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝ low 1 |
|||
| ESR | The mean ESR in the intervention groups was 6.44 lower (9.24 to 3.63 lower) |
1522 (16 studies) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝ low 1,2 |
|||
| CRP | The mean CRP in the intervention groups was 1.32 standard deviations lower (1.81 to 0.83 lower) |
1513 (17 studies) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low 1,2,3 |
SMD -1.32 (-1.81 to -0.83) | ||
| RF | The mean RF in the intervention groups was 2.01 standard deviations lower (3.01 to 1.01 lower) |
984 (10 studies) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low 1,2,3 |
SMD -2.01 (-3.01 to -1.01) | ||
| Adverse events | Study population |
RR 0.55
(0.44 to 0.69) |
1362 (15 studies) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝ low 1,2 |
||
| 242 per 1000 |
133 per 1000
(106 to 167) |
|||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 250 per 1000 |
138 per 1000
(110 to 172) |
|||||
*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI, Confidence interval; RR, Risk ratio;
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence.
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.
1 Downgraded one level due to the probably substantial heterogeneity.
2 Downgraded one level due to serious risk of bias (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcomes) and most of the data comes from the RCTs with moderate risk of bias.
3 Downgraded one level due to the publication bias.