Table 3.
The results of subgroup meta-analysis for total effectiveness.
| Subgroup | Eligible Studies (number) |
Acupuncture group (number) |
Medication group (number) |
RR/MD (95% CI) | P value | Heterogeneity test | Effect model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acupuncture method | |||||||
| Manual acupuncture | 7 [28, 30, 31, 33–37] | 355 | 316 | 1.23 (1.15, 1.32) | P < 0.00001 | I 2 = 0% | Fixed |
| Electroacupuncture | 2 [29, 34] | 82 | 81 | 1.42 (1.09, 1.85) | P = 0.009 | I 2 = 68% | Random |
| Warm needle moxibustion | 1 [32] | 50 | 50 | 1.21 (1.02, 1.44) | P = 0.03 | — | — |
|
| |||||||
| Intervention type for treatment group | |||||||
| Acupuncture | 8 [28, 31–37] | 384 | 364 | 1.25 (1.18, 1.34) | P < 0.00001 | I 2 = 4% | Fixed |
| Acupuncture + drug | 2 [29, 30] | 83 | 83 | 1.32 (1.14, 1.52) | P = 0.0001 | I 2 = 0% | Fixed |
|
| |||||||
| Drug categories of control group | |||||||
| Ligustrazine | 2 [28, 36] | 124 | 110 | 1.19 (1.06, 1.33) | P = 0.02 | I 2 = 0% | Fixed |
| Betahistine | 2 [32, 35] | 83 | 82 | 1.23 (1.07, 1.41) | P = 0.003 | I 2 = 0% | Fixed |
| Ligustrazine + flunarizine | 1 [29] | 35 | 35 | 1.26 (1.04, 1.52) | P = 0.02 | — | — |
| Betahistine + flunarizine | 2 [31, 34] | 111 | 96 | 1.37 (0.99, 1.90) | P = 0.05 | I 2 = 81% | Random |
| Nimesulide + eperisone + flunarizine | 1 [33] | 50 | 50 | 1.17 (1.03, 1.33) | P = 0.02 | — | — |
| Nimodipine | 1 [30] | 48 | 48 | 1.36 (1.11, 1.67) | P = 0.003 | — | — |
| Traditional Chinese medicine | 1 [37] | 35 | 35 | 1.26 (1.04, 1.52) | P = 0.02 | — | — |
RR: risk ratio; MD: mean difference; 95% CI: 95% confidence interval.