Skip to main content
. 2024 Jul 23;13(3):101069. doi: 10.1016/j.imr.2024.101069

Table 2.

GRADE recommendation.

Certainty assessment
№ of patients
Effect
Certainty Importance
№ of studies Study design Risk of bias Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Other considerations Liriope Tuber included traditional herbal medicine Conventional Medicine Relative
(95 % CI)
Absolute
(95 % CI)
PAF Frequency
16 randomised trials seriousa seriousb,c seriousd not serious none 634 632 SMD 0.99 SD fewer
(1.4 fewer to 0.57 fewer)
⨁⨁◯◯
Low
CRITICAL
LAD
16 randomised trials seriousa seriousc seriousd not serious none 406 401 MD 2.39 lower
(3.09 lower to 1.68 lower)
⨁⨁◯◯
Low
CRITICAL
hs-CRP
8 randomised trials seriousa seriousc seriousd not serious none 348 345 MD 1.10 lower
(1.73 lower to 0.47 lower)
⨁⨁◯◯
Low
IMPORTANT
Pd
10 randomised trials seriousa seriousc seriousd not serious none 357 356 MD 6.41 lower
(8.44 lower to 4.37 lower)
⨁⨁◯◯
Low
IMPORTANT
LVEF
7 randomised trials seriousa seriousc seriousd not serious none 626 620 MD 4.71 more
(3.17 more to 6.25 more)
⨁⨁◯◯
Low
IMPORTANT

CI, confidence interval; MD, mean difference; SMD, standardised mean difference, PAF, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, LAD, Left atrium diameter, Pd, P-wave dispersion, LVEF, Left ventricular ejection fraction.

Explanations.

a

. All studies were assessed for some concerns or high risk of bias.

b

. The units of measurement are different, and the explanation is not clear.

c

. Substantial or considerable heterogeneity.

d

. The interventions were complex, with Liriope Tuber being only one component of the regimen.