Table 3.

Quality of evidence ratings for the response rate in pairwise meta-analysis.

Intervention and Comparator Intervention	Outcomes	Number of Participants (Studies)	Anticipated Absolute Effects (95% CI)	Quality of the Evidence (GRADE)
EACP compared to CM for diabetic peripheral neuropathy	Response rate	516 (7)	224 more per 1000 (from 139 more to 318 more)	⨁⨁⨁◯ MODERATE a
ECCP compared to CM for diabetic peripheral neuropathy	Response rate	1006 (11)	134 more per 1000 (from 77 more to 196 more)	⨁⨁◯◯ LOW a,c
EAWP compared to CM for diabetic peripheral neuropathy	Response rate	931 (11)	184 more per 1000 (from 96 more to 283 more)	⨁⨁◯◯ LOW a,c
ECWP compared to CM for diabetic peripheral neuropathy	Response rate	908 (12)	190 more per 1000 (from 130 more to 255 more)	⨁⨁◯◯ LOW a,c

CM: conventional medicine; EACP: East Asian herbal medicine monotherapy containing the Astragali Radix–Cinnamomi Ramulus herb-pair; EAWP: East Asian herbal medicine monotherapy without the Astragali Radix–Cinnamomi Ramulus herb-pair; ECCP: East Asian herbal medicine and conventional medicine combined therapy containing the Astragali Radix–Cinnamomi Ramulus herb-pair; ECWP: East Asian herbal medicine and conventional medicine combined therapy without the Astragali Radix–Cinnamomi Ramulus herb-pair. GRADE working group grades of evidence. High quality(⨁⨁⨁⨁): further research is unlikely to change our confidence in estimating this effect. Moderate quality(⨁⨁⨁◯): further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in estimating the effect, and may change the estimate. Low quality(⨁⨁◯◯): further research is likely to impact our confidence in the estimate of the effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality(⨁◯◯◯): very uncertain about the estimate. a: study design with some bias in randomized or distributed blind. b: 95% confidence interval passes 0 (MD and SMD) or 1 (RR and OR), and other interventions are not satisfied. c: confidence intervals are less overlapping, or the heterogeneity is high.