Table 3.

Summary of meta-analyses.

Study outcomes	Number of trials	Number of participants	Statistical method	Effect estimate	Test for overall effect		Heterogeneity (I 2)
					Z	P
Overall assessment of acupoints stimulation: acupoints stimulation versus different comparisons (for anxiety)
Acupoints stimulation versus standard methods of treatment/care	3	567	NR	NR	NR	NR	NA
Acupoints stimulation versus sham acupoints stimulation	2	137	Mean difference (IV, random, 95% CI)	−0.65 [−2.84, 1.53]	0.59	0.56	>50%
Overall assessment of acupoints stimulation: acupoints stimulation versus different comparisons (for depression)
Acupoints stimulation versus standard methods of treatment/care	5	485	Mean difference (IV, random, 95% CI)	−1.08 [−1.97, −0.19]	2.39	0.02	>50%
Acupoints stimulation versus sham acupoints stimulation	2	137	Mean difference (IV, random, 95% CI)	−0.27 [−2.66, 2.12]	0.23	0.82	50%
Subgroup analysis: different types of acupoints stimulation versus standard methods of treatment/care (for anxiety)
Electroacupuncture	2	112	NR	NR	NR	NR	NA
Acupuncture	2	302∗	NR	NR	NR	NR	NA
Subgroup analysis: different types of acupoints stimulation versus standard methods of treatment/care (for depression)
Electroacupuncture	2	159	NR	NR	NR	NR	NA
Acupuncture	4	393	Mean difference (IV, random, 95% CI)	−2.55 [−3.61, −1.49]	4.72	<0.00001	>50%
Subgroup analysis: different types of acupoints stimulation versus sham comparison (for anxiety)
Acupuncture	2	152	NR	NR	NR	NR	NA
Acupressure	1	57	NR	NR	NR	NR	NA
Subgroup analysis: different types of acupoints stimulation versus sham comparison (for depression)
Acupuncture	2	152	NR	NR	NR	NR	NA
Acupressure	1	57	NR	NR	NR	NR	NA

IV: inverse variance, CI: confidence interval, NR: not reported because pooling was not conducted due to the insufficient number of studies, different models of data, or absence of data, NA: not applicable

^∗Sample was adopted from one study (as the sample of the other study was based on the study we adopted).