Table 2.
Network meta-analysis comparisons.
| W-M | 2.86 ∗ (2.05, 3.95) | 6.29 ∗ (3.36, 12.67) | 8.12 ∗ (4.07, 16.81) | 3.79 ∗ (1.85, 8.16) | 5.20 ∗ (2.43, 11.28) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.35 (0.25, 0.49) | C-ACU | 2.18 ∗ (1.10, 4.68) | 2.86 ∗ (1.48, 5.72) | 1.32 (0.62, 2.95) | 1.81 (0.87, 4.01) |
| 0.16 (0.08, 0.30) | 0.46 (0.21, 0.91) | E-ACU | 1.28 (0.51, 3.36) | 0.61 (0.22, 1.59) | 0.83 (0.30, 2.21) |
| 0.12 (0.06, 0.25) | 0.35 (0.17, 0.67) | 0.78 (0.30, 1.97) | S-ACU | 0.46 (0.17, 1.33) | 0.64 (0.24, 1.67) |
| 0.26 (0.12, 0.54) | 0.76 (0.34, 1.61) | 1.65 (0.63, 4.51) | 2.19 (0.75, 5.94) | W-ACU | 1.37 (0.47, 3.82) |
| 0.19 (0.09, 0.41) | 0.55 (0.25, 1.15) | 1.20 (0.45, 3.31) | 1.56 (0.60, 4.24) | 0.73 (0.26, 2.12) | E + S-ACU |
W-M, western medicine; C-ACU, conventional acupuncture; E-ACU, electroacupuncture; S-ACU, scalp acupuncture; W-ACU, warm acupuncture; E + S-ACU, electroacupuncture combined scalp acupuncture; ∗significant difference. Note. The values in the lower-left part of the table suggest the OR of the column index compared with that of the row index, and the values in the upper-right part of the table suggest the OR of the row index compared with that of the column index. OR > 1.00 of the lower-left and upper-right parts of the table indicates the high effectiveness of the intervention measures listed. Significant results are in bold.