Table 3.
Quality of evidence included systematic reviews with GRADE.
| Author; year | Outcomes | Studies (participants) | Limitations | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Publication bias | Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deng et al. [14] 2018 | Response | |||||||
| AT versus SAT | 12 (933) | −1① | 0 | 0 | 0 | −1⑤ | Low | |
| VAS | ||||||||
| AT versus MT | 3(162) | −1① | 0 | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | Very low | |
| AT versus CPM | 2 (145) | −1① | 0 | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | Very low | |
| AT + herbal versus MT | 2 (166) | −1① | 0 | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | Very low | |
|
| ||||||||
| Zhang et al. [15] 2018 | Response | |||||||
| AT versus SAT | 4 (694) | −1① | 0 | 0 | 0 | −1⑤ | Low | |
| AT versus NSAIDs | 3 (168) | −1① | 0 | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | Very low | |
| VAS | ||||||||
| AT versus SAT | 4 (693) | 0 | −1② | 0 | 0 | −1⑤ | Low | |
| AT versus NSAIDs | 2 (102) | −1① | −1② | 0 | 0 | −1⑤ | Very low | |
| Headache days | ||||||||
| AT versus SAT | 3 (754) | −1① | 0 | 0 | 0 | −1⑤ | Low | |
| Headache index | ||||||||
| AT versus NSAIDs | 3 (168) | −1① | −1② | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | Very low | |
|
| ||||||||
| Lin and Xiao [16] 2015 | Response | |||||||
| AT versus MT | 9 (598) | −1① | 0 | 0 | 0 | −1⑤ | Low | |
| VAS | ||||||||
| AT versus MT | 4 (236) | −1① | 0 | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | Very low | |
|
| ||||||||
| Li and Luo [17] 2005 | Response | |||||||
| AT versus SAT (after treatment) | 2 (48) | −1① | 0 | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | Very low | |
| VAS | ||||||||
| AT versus SAT (after treatment) | 3 (154) | −1① | 0 | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | Very low | |
| AT versus SAT (within 2 months) | 3 (152) | −1① | 0 | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | Very low | |
| AT versus SAT (more than 2 months) | 2 (103) | −1① | 0 | 0 | −1④ | −1⑤ | Very low | |
|
| ||||||||
| Linde et al. [18] 2016 | Response | |||||||
| AT versus SAT (within 2 months) | 4 (1093) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | High | |
| AT versus SAT (3-4 months) | 4 (703) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | High | |
| AT versus SAT (5-6 months) | 4 (723) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | High | |
| AT versus SAT (more than 6 months) | 1 (30) | 0 | 0 | 0 | −1④ | 0 | Moderate | |
| Headache days | ||||||||
| AT versus SAT (within 2 months) | 4 (682) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | High | |
| AT versus SAT (3-4 months) | 4 (653) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | High | |
| AT versus SAT (5-6 months) | 4 (670) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | High | |
| Headache intensity | ||||||||
| AT versus SAT (3-4 months) | 4 (655) | 0 | 0 | 0 | −1④ | 0 | Moderate | |
| AT versus SAT (5-6 months) | 4 (670) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | High | |
| Safety | ||||||||
| AT versus SAT | 3 (277) | 0 | −1② | 0 | −1④ | 0 | Low | |
| AT versus NAT | 1 (207) | 0 | −1② | 0 | −1④ | 0 | Low | |
|
| ||||||||
| Hao et al. [19] 2013 | Headache days | |||||||
| AT versus SAT (after treatment) | 5 (729) | −① | −1② | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | |
| AT versus SAT (within 3 months) | 3 (510) | −① | 0 | 0 | −1④ | 0 | Low | |
| AT versus SAT (more than 3 months) | 4 (684) | −① | 0 | 0 | −1④ | 0 | Low | |
|
| ||||||||
| Davis et al. [20] 2008 | Headache days | |||||||
| AT versus SAT (during treatment) | 5 (729) | −1① | 0 | 0 | 0 | −1⑤ | Low | |
| AT versus SAT (20–25 weeks) | 4 (723) | −1① | 0 | 0 | 0 | −1⑤ | Low | |
| Headache intensity | ||||||||
| AT versus SAT (during treatment) | 3 (199) | −1① | 0 | 0 | 0 | −1⑤ | Low | |
| AT versus SAT (20–25 weeks) | 4 (713) | −1① | 0 | 0 | 0 | −1⑤ | Low | |
|
| ||||||||
| Sun and Gan [21] 2008 | Headache intensity | |||||||
| AT versus SAT (1 month later) | 6 (762) | −1① | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | |
| AT versus SAT (2 months later) | 4 (681) | −1① | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | |
AT: acupuncture therapy; SAT: sham acupuncture therapy; NAT: nonacupuncture therapy; CPM : Chinese patent medicine; NSAIDs: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; MT: medication therapy; VAS: visual analog scale; ①: the design of the experiment with a large bias in random, distributive hiding or blind; ②: the confidence interval overlaps less, the heterogeneity test P is very small, and the I2 is larger; ③: confidence interval is not narrow enough; ④: funnel graph asymmetry; ⑤: fewer studies are included and there may be greater publication bias.