Table 2.
GRADE evidence profile
| Quality assessment | No. of patients | Effect | Quality | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Included studies | Study design | Risk of bias | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Other considerations | Intervention | Control | Absolute (95% CI) | P value | |
| Self-reported pain on VAS scale (0–5) | Hypnotherapy | Standard care | |||||||||
| Liossi 2003, Liossi 2006, Liossi 2009 | Randomized trials | Not serious | Not serious | Not serious | Not serious | None | 50 | 50 | MD − 1.37 lower* (− 1.6 to − 1.15) | < 0.00001 | ⨁⨁⨁⨁HIGH |
| Self-reported pain on VAS scale (0–5) | Hypnotherapy | Attention control | |||||||||
|
Liossi 2003, Liossi 2006, Liossi 2009, Katz 1987 |
Randomized trials | not serious | not serious | not serious | not serious | none | 67 | 69 | MD − 1.13 lower* (− 1.34 to − 0.93) | <0.00001 | ⨁⨁⨁⨁HIGH |
| Visual analog scale (VAS), range 0–10, self-reported | Massage | Standard care | |||||||||
|
Celebioglu 2015, Mehling 2012 |
Randomized trials | Very serious | Not serious | Not serious | Not serious | None | 28 | 20 | MD − 0.77 lower* (− 1.82 to 0.28**) | 0.15 | ⨁⨁◯◯LOW |
CI, confidence interval; MD, mean difference. *A negative effect value favors the CAM intervention group, a positive effect value favors the control group. **In case the CI includes the null-value, it indicates there is no significant difference between the groups