Table 4.
Pairwise meta-analysis of effective rate.
| Comparison | Number | OR (95% CI) | p | I 2 (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A VS H | 6 | 3.26 (1.76, 6.04) | 0.0002 | 0 |
| A VS I | 5 | 7.33 (3.59, 14.95) | <0.00001 | 0 |
| A VS J | 3 | 4.13 (1.81, 9.39) | 0.0007 | 0 |
| A VS G | 1 | 4.15 (1.37, 12.58) | 0.01 | — |
| A VS C | 1 | 1.00 (0.23, 4.31) | 1 | — |
| A VS D | 3 | 1.94 (0.62, 6.02) | 0.25 | 0 |
| B VS I | 5 | 2.44 (1.63, 3.67) | <0.0001 | 0 |
| B VS G | 4 | 7.55 (5.25, 10.87) | <0.00001 | 60 |
| D VS H | 3 | 4.13 (2.23, 7.64) | <0.00001 | 23 |
| G VS I | 2 | 0.38 (0.26, 0.56) | <0.00001 | 0 |
| E VS H | 1 | 7.58 (0.84, 68.46) | 0.07 | — |
| E VS J | 1 | 1.38 (0.28, 6.80) | 0.69 | — |
Note. A: acupuncture; B: electroacupuncture; C: acupoint application; D: moxibustion; E: acupoint catgut embedding; F: Warm acupuncture; G: sham acupuncture; H: domperidone; I: itopride; J: mosapride.