Table 2.
Network meta-analysis comparisons for clinical effectiveness.
| CMBBA | 1.05c (0.97, 1.14) | 1c (0.91, 1.1) | 1.08c (0.9, 1.28) | 0.9a (0.84, 0.95) | 0.88a (0.81, 0.95) | 0.9c (0.76, 1.03) | 0.79b (0.72, 0.87) |
| 0.95c (0.88, 1.03) | CMBBA + MP | 0.95c (0.84, 1.07) | 1.03c (0.84, 1.24) | 0.86a (0.8, 0.9) | 0.84a (0.75, 0.93) | 0.86c (0.71, 1) | 0.76b (0.66, 0.86) |
| 1c (0.91, 1.1) | 1.05c (0.93, 1.18) | CMBBA + MP + M | 1.09c (0.88, 1.31) | 0.9c (0.8, 1) | 0.88a (0.83, 0.93) | 0.9c (0.74, 1.06) | 0.8a (0.69, 0.91) |
| 0.92c (0.78, 1.11) | 0.97c (0.81, 1.19) | 0.92c (0.76, 1.13) | CMBBA + MP + AI | 0.83a (0.69, 1.01) | 0.81a (0.68, 0.99) | 0.83a (0.76, 0.9) | 0.73b (0.61, 0.91) |
| 1.11a (1.05, 1.19) | 1.17a (1.11, 1.24) | 1.11c (1, 1.25) | 1.2a (0.99, 1.45) | MP | 0.98c (0.89, 1.08) | 1c (0.84, 1.17) | 0.88c (0.78, 0.99) |
| 1.14a (1.06, 1.23) | 1.2a (1.08, 1.33) | 1.13a (1.08, 1.21) | 1.23a (1.01, 1.48) | 1.02c (0.93, 1.12) | MP + M | 1.02c (0.85, 1.2) | 0.9c (0.8, 1.02) |
| 1.11c (0.97, 1.31) | 1.17c (1, 1.41) | 1.11c (0.94, 1.35) | 1.21a (1.11, 1.32) | 1c (0.86, 1.19) | 0.98c (0.83, 1.18) | MP + AI | 0.88c (0.75, 1.07) |
| 1.26b (1.15, 1.4) | 1.32b (1.17, 1.51) | 1.26a (1.1, 1.45) | 1.36b (1.11, 1.65) | 1.13c (1.01, 1.27) | 1.11c (0.98, 1.26) | 1.13c (0.94, 1.34) | MP + M + AI |
CMBBA, Chinese medicine belly button application; MP, montmorillonite powder; M, microecologics; AI, anti-infectives. Statistically significant results were in bold and underscored. The certainty of the evidence (according to Supplementary CINeMA results) was incorporated in this table.
Bold values indicate that the difference is statistically significant.
a
Moderate quality of evidence.
b
Low quality of evidence.
c
Very low quality of evidence.