TABLE 8.
The result of inconsistency analysis
| CMS | VAS | CCD | Complications | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Local Inconsistency | Comparison | p value | Comparison | p value | Comparison | p value | Comparison | p value |
| HP versus TR | 0.86 | HP versus TR | 0.59 | HP versus TR | 0.71 | HP versus TR | 0.39 | |
| HP versus TG | 0.80 | HP versus TG | NA | HP versus TG | NA | HP versus TG | 0.98 | |
| HP versus EB | 0.91 | HP versus EB | 0.66 | HP versus EB | 0.38 | HP versus EB | 0.20 | |
| HP versus SA | 0.72 | HP versus SA | 0.26 | HP versus SA | 0.60 | HP versus SA | 0.53 | |
| TR versus TG | 0.80 | TR versus TG | 0.99 | TR versus TG | NA | TR versus TG | 0.70 | |
| TR versus EB | 0.96 | TR versus EB | 0.58 | TR versus EB | 0.38 | TR versus EB | 0.08 | |
| TR versus SA | NA | TR versus SA | NA | TR versus SA | 0.60 | TR versus SA | 0.52 | |
| TG versus EB | NA | TG versus EB | NA | TG versus EB | NA | TG versus EB | 0.75 | |
| EB versus SA | 0.72 | EB versus SA | 0.26 | EB versus SA | NA | EB versus SA | 0.83 | |
| Global inconsistency | Comparison | p value | Comparison | p value | Comparison | p value | Comparison | p value |
| HP versus TR | 0.001 | HP versus TR | 0.85 | HP versus TR | 0.001 | HP versus TR | 0.015 | |
| HP versus TG | 0.90 | HP versus TG | 0.30 | HP versus TG | 0.54 | HP versus TG | 0.75 | |
| HP versus EB | 0.01 | HP versus EB | 0.23 | HP versus EB | 0.09 | HP versus EB | 0.55 | |
| HP versus SA | 0.03 | HP versus SA | 0.76 | HP versus SA | 0.93 | HP versus SA | 0.09 | |