Summary of findings 6. Summary of findings: catgut implantation at acupoints plus antiepileptic drugs versus antiepileptic drugs alone.
| Catgut implantation at acupoints plus antiepileptic drugs compared with antiepileptic drugs alone for epilepsy | ||||||
|
Patient or population: participants with epilepsy Settings: hospital inpatients and outpatients Intervention: catgut implantation at acupoints plus antiepileptic drugs Comparison: antiepileptic drugs alone | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| antiepileptic drugs alone | catgut implantation at acupoints plus antiepileptic drugs | |||||
|
Seizure freedom (follow‐up: 2 months to 1 year) |
127 per 1000 | 192 per 1000 (118 to 309) | RR 1.51 (0.93 to 2.43) | 361 (4) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ lowa | |
|
50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency (follow‐up: 2 months to 1 year) |
444 per 1000 | 630 per 1000 (475 to 840) | RR 1.42 (1.07 to 1.89) | 401 (5) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ lowa | |
|
Post‐treatment quality of life (QOLIE‐31 score, which has a range of 0‐100, with higher score indicates worse quality of life) (follow‐up: 3 months) |
The mean post‐treatment quality of life was 53.21 points. | The mean post‐treatment quality of life in the intervention group was 7.54 points lower (14.47 points lower to 0.61 points lower). | 120 (1) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ lowa | ||
|
Frequency of adverse effects ‐ dizziness (follow‐up: 3 months) |
160 per 1000 | 53 per 1000 (20 to 138) | RR 0.33 (0.13 to 0.86) | 120 (1) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ lowa | |
|
Frequency of adverse effects ‐ malaise (follow‐up: 3 months) |
233 per 1000 | 117 per 1000 (51 to 268) | RR 0.50 (0.22 to 1.15) | 120 (1) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ lowa | |
|
Frequency of adverse effects ‐ nausea (follow‐up: 3 months) |
140 per 1000 | 46 per 1000 (12 to 164) | RR 0.33 (0.09 to 1.17) | 120 (1) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ lowa | |
|
Frequency of adverse effects ‐ anorexia (follow‐up: 3 months) |
180 per 1000 | 45 per 1000 (10 to 204) | RR 0.25 (0.06 to 1.13) | 120 (1) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ lowa | |
| *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. | ||||||
a. Evidence from RCT downgraded by two levels because of high risk of bias in study design and imprecise result.