Skip to main content
. 2017 Mar 23;17:163. doi: 10.1186/s12906-017-1647-x

Table 1.

Comparison of network meta-analysis and traditional meta-analysis

CbAM SAM Chinese medicine Western medicine Placebo (Sham-acupuncture)
Treatment T-metaa N-metab T-metaa N-metab T-metaa N-metab T-metaa N-metab T-metaa N-metab
CbAM 1.23 (1.12–1.36) 1.10 (1.04–1.17) 1.17 (1.09–1.25) 1.23 (1.15–1.32) 1.68 (1.29–1.69) 5.84 (1.19–12.21)
SAM 0.91 (0.85–0.96) 1.22 (1.14–1.30) 1.12 (1.03–1.21) 1.51 (1.31–1.74) 1.53 (1.17–2.43) 5.90 (3.64–9.56) 5.31 (1.74–11.07)
Chinese medicine 0.81 (0.77–0.87) 0.89 (0.83–0.97) 1.20 (1.10–1.50) 4.00 (2.50–6.90)
Western medicine 0.62 (0.37–0.77) 0.68 (0.41–0.85) 0.76 (0.46–0.96) 3.20 (1.90–5.50)
placebo (sham-acupuncture) 0.21 (0.08–0.53) 0.24 (0.09–0.58) 0.26 (0.10–0.65) 0.37 (0.12–0.99)

astands for traditional meta-analysis

bstands for network meta-analysis