Skip to main content
. 2024 Jan 4;14:1295154. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1295154

Table 2.

Subgroup analysis results.

Subgroup efficiency rate VAS SUA
Study RR [95%CI] P value I 2 Study MD[95%CI] P value I 2 Study MD [95%CI] P value I 2
Total 14 1.14 [1.10-1.19] 0.0001 23% 10 -2.26 [-2.71,-1.81] 0.0001 83% 10 -31.60 [-44.24,-18.96] 0.0001 74%
Interventions • non-pharmaceutical 4 1.07 [0.99-1.17] 0.08 0% 4 -2.49 [-2.82,-2.16] 0.00001 0% 3 -29.97 [-71.22,-11.29] 0.15 92%
• combination of drugs 10 1.17 [1.11-1.23] 0.00001 49% 6 -2.11 [-2.74,-1.49] 0.0001 87% 7 -35.88 [-44.66,-27.10] 0.0001 24%
Sample size • n<40 9 1.08 [1.03-1.14] 0.002 0% 8 -2.50 [-2.77,-2.23] 0.00001 23% 3 -29.55 [-45.32,-13.77] 0.0001 80%
• n≥40 5 1.23 [1.14-1.33] 0.00001 1% 2 -1.30 [-1.72,-0.88] 0.0001 55% 7 -38.33 [-58.73,-17.94] 0.18 42%
EA frequency • 2Hz 3 1.13 [1.00-1.26] 0.05 31% 3 -2.19 [-2.93,-1.45] 0.00001 81% 2 -23.34 [-89.05,42.37] 0.49 89%
• >2Hz 11 1.11 [1.06-1.17] 0.00001 27% 7 -2.30 [-2.92,-1.68] 0.00001 86% 8 -37.76 [-45.20,-30.33] 0.0001 19%

EA, electroacupuncture; RR, risk rate; MD, mean difference; VAS, visual assessment scale; SUA, serum uric acid; CI, confidence interval.