Table 3.
Overall evidence GRADE quality rating of seven included studies.
| Outcomes | Number of Studies | Study Design | Sample SizeTC | Degradation Factors | Effect Size | Evidence Grade | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Risk of Bias | Inconsistency | Indirect | Imprecision | Publication Bias | ||||||
| Effective rate | 14 | RCT | • T536 • C481 |
-1 a | -1 c | (RR= 1.14, 95% CI= 1.10 to 1.19) | low | |||
| Analgesic effect(VAS) |
10 | RCT | • T334 • C332 |
-1 a | -1 b | -1 c | (MD= -2.26, 95% CI= -2.71 to -1.81) | very low | ||
| SUA | 10 | RCT | • T357 • C333 |
-1 a | (MD= -31.60, 95%CI= -44.24 to -18.96) | middle | ||||
| Immediate analg-esic effect(VAS) | 2 | RCT | • T60 • C59 |
-1 a | -1 b | -1 c | (MD= -1.85, 95%CI= -2.65 to -1.05) | very low | ||
| Adverse events | 5 | RCT | • T160 • C160 |
-1 a | -1 c | (RR= 0.20, 95% CI= 0.04 to 0.88) | low | |||
T, treatment; C, control; RCT, randomized controlled trial; RR, risk ratio; CI, confidence interval; VAS,visual rating scale; SUA= serum uric acid.
a
The design of the trial has a large bias in randomization, allocation concealment, or blinding.
b
The credible interval overlaps less, the P-value of the heterogeneity test is small, and the I of the combined results is large.
c
Statistical results indicating publication bias or small sample size suggesting possible publication bias.