Table 3.

Quality of Evidence Assessment

^a GRADE Working Group grades of evidence: high certainty, very confident that the true effect is close to the effect estimate; moderate certainty, moderately confident in the effect estimate—the true effect is likely to be close to the effect estimate, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different; low certainty, confidence in the effect estimate is limited—the true effect may be substantially different from the effect estimate; very low certainty, very little confidence in the effect estimate—the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the effect estimate.

^b Nine out of 12 studies were associated with moderate to high risk of bias. The results were imprecise due to the confidence intervals, including potential for no effect or benefit and small effect size. One included study contained a dose–response gradient; therefore, the quality of evidence was upgraded one level from low to moderate.

^c The results were imprecise due to the confidence intervals, including potential for no effect or benefit and small effect size. Funnel plot analysis was not able to be conducted because only four studies reported quality-of-life outcome, three of which reported results that preferred the effect of ginseng and one of which found no significant difference between ginseng and control groups. Publication bias was suspected.

^d Risk of bias analysis showed moderate to high risk of bias associated with AEs.

^e The intervention group risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; RCT, randomized controlled trial; SMD, standardized mean difference.