Skip to main content
. 2023 Apr 3;14:1144290. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1144290

Table 2.

League table of NMA estimations.

(A) Network meta-analysis comparisons for clinical effective rate
CD
0.16 (0.03,0.69) CDDP
0.11 (0.04,0.26) 0.66 (0.11,4.09) CDDP+CD
0.33 (0.07,1.43) 2.05 (0.24,17.82) 3.11 (0.53,18.86) CXC
0.24 (0.15,0.36) 1.45 (0.31,7.62) 2.20 (0.82,6.73) 0.71 (0.15,3.51) CXC+CD
0.41 (0.11,1.47) 2.53 (0.36,19.87) 3.85 (0.81,20.21) 1.24 (0.17,9.20) 1.73 (0.45,6.89) DHHYK
0.31 (0.13,0.70) 1.88 (0.35,11.58) 2.85 (0.86,10.97) 0.92 (0.17,5.29) 1.29 (0.51,3.40) 0.74 (0.16,3.50) HXMMT+CD
0.31 (0.05,1.63) 1.92 (0.18,19.29) 2.92 (0.37,20.89) 0.93 (0.09,9.07) 1.32 (0.20,7.41) 0.75 (0.08,6.25) 1.01 (0.13,6.54) MMDHP+CD
0.23 (0.10,0.42) 1.38 (0.26,7.58) 2.09 (0.66,6.94) 0.68 (0.13,3.50) 0.95 (0.41,2.04) 0.55 (0.12,2.24) 0.74 (0.23,2.03) 0.72 (0.11,5.00) QG
0.19 (0.08,0.42) 1.15 (0.21,6.93) 1.74 (0.50,6.53) 0.56 (0.10,3.20) 0.79 (0.30,2.00) 0.45 (0.10,2.10) 0.61 (0.18,1.94) 0.60 (0.09,4.53) 0.83 (0.29,2.54) QG+CD
0.27 (0.09,0.77) 1.66 (0.27,11.24) 2.50 (0.66,11.20) 0.81 (0.13,5.18) 1.13 (0.38,3.66) 0.65 (0.12,3.49) 0.88 (0.23,3.39) 0.86 (0.12,7.22) 1.18 (0.37,4.59) 1.44 (0.39,5.65) SDMUC
0.21 (0.07,0.56) 1.28 (0.21,8.48) 1.95 (0.47,8.20) 0.62 (0.10,3.91) 0.88 (0.27,2.65) 0.50 (0.09,2.59) 0.68 (0.17,2.50) 0.67 (0.09,5.43) 0.93 (0.27,3.25) 1.12 (0.28,4.22) 0.77 (0.17,3.25) SDMUC+CD
(B) Network meta-analysis comparisons for visual acuity
CD
-0.19 (-0.41,0.03) CDDP
-0.09 (-0.25,0.05) 0.10 (-0.17,0.36) CDDP+CD
-0.46 (-0.68,-0.24) -0.27 (-0.58,0.04) -0.37 (-0.62,-0.10) CXC+CD
-0.07 (-0.29,0.15) 0.12 (-0.19,0.43) 0.02 (-0.23,0.29) 0.39 (0.08,0.70) DHHYK
-0.11 (-0.24,0.02) 0.08 (-0.17,0.33) -0.02 (-0.21,0.18) 0.35 (0.10,0.60) -0.04 (-0.29,0.21) QG+CD
(C) Network meta-analysis comparisons for visual field gray value
CD
1.29 (0.73,1.81) CDDP
0.93 (0.67,1.19) -0.36 (-0.93,0.27) CDDP+CD
0.92 (0.75,1.08) -0.37 (-0.91,0.21) -0.02 (-0.32,0.29) CXC+CD
0.51 (-0.00,1.02) -0.78 (-1.50,-0.01) -0.42 (-1.00,0.15) -0.41 (-0.95,0.13) HXMMT+CD
0.99 (0.63,1.35) -0.30 (-0.92,0.37) 0.06 (-0.39,0.50) 0.07 (-0.33,0.47) 0.48 (-0.15,1.11) MMDHP+CD
(D) Network meta-analysis comparisons for microaneurysm volume
CD
3.05 (2.56,3.51) CDDP+CD
3.52 (3.05,3.99) 0.47 (-0.19,1.15) CXC+CD
4.04 (3.14,4.95) 0.99 (-0.01,2.03) 0.53 (-0.49,1.54) HXMMT+CD
3.17 (2.66,3.65) 0.12 (-0.56,0.81) -0.35 (-1.05,0.33) -0.87 (-1.92,0.14) MMDHP+CD
(E) Network meta-analysis comparisons for hemorrhage area
CD
0.80 (0.50,1.10) CDDP
0.81 (0.69,0.96) 0.01 (-0.31,0.35) CDDP+CD
0.81 (0.73,0.90) 0.01 (-0.30,0.32) -0.01 (-0.17,0.15) CXC+CD
0.56 (0.38,0.74) -0.24 (-0.59,0.11) -0.25 (-0.50,-0.04) -0.25 (-0.46,-0.05) HXMMT+CD
0.85 (0.73,0.99) 0.05 (-0.27,0.38) 0.04 (-0.16,0.22) 0.05 (-0.11,0.20) 0.29 (0.07,0.53) MMDHP+CD
0.91 (0.76,1.05) 0.10 (-0.23,0.44) 0.09 (-0.12,0.28) 0.10 (-0.07,0.26) 0.35 (0.11,0.58) 0.05 (-0.15,0.24) SDMUC+CD
(F) Network meta-analysis comparisons for macular thickness
CD
68.87 (36.48,101.20) CDDP+CD
70.76 (55.83,85.51) 1.88 (-33.73,37.47) CXC+CD
45.19 (-0.48,90.77) -23.67 (-79.56,32.22) -25.57 (-73.48,22.60) HXMMT+CD
52.16 (19.76,84.49) -16.71 (-62.45,29.08) -18.60 (-54.01,17.02) 6.98 (-49.01,62.74) MMDHP+CD
22.01 (-23.93,67.98) -46.85 (-102.96,9.49) -48.75 (-97.01,-0.34) -23.23 (-87.96,41.40) -30.15 (-86.36,26.06) QG
47.06 (14.64,79.50) -21.85 (-67.65,24.15) -23.69 (-59.28,12.00) 1.85 (-54.22,57.84) -5.09 (-50.87,40.55) 25.04 (-31.22,81.28) SDMUC+CD

The differences between the compared groups were deemed as significant when the 95% CrI of the OR did not contain 1.00 or the MD did not contain 0.00, which is marked as bold font. The data are the OR (95% CrI) of the column intervention compared to the row intervention, i.e., for the clinical effective rate, CD alone was significantly less effective than CDDP alone (OR 0.16, 95% CrI 0.03,0.69). CD, calcium dobesilate; CXC, Compound Xueshuantong Capsule; CDDP, Compound Danshen Dripping Pill; SDMUC, Shuangdan Mingmu Capsule; QG, Qiming Granule; HXMMT, Hexuemingmu Tablet; DHHYK, Danhong Huayu Koufuye; MMDHP, Mingmu Dihuang Pill.