Table 5.
Network meta-analysis comparisons of effectiveness for improving overall symptoms of allergic rhinitis.
| E | 1.20 (0.81, 1.78) | 0.79 (0.49, 1.28) | 0.93 (0.68, 1.27) | 1.03 (0.75, 1.41) | 1.29 (0.99, 1.67) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.12 (0.90, 1.39) | D | 0.66 (0.40, 1.08) | 0.77 (0.55, 1.08) | 0.85 (0.61, 1.20) | 1.07 (0.80, 1.43) |
| 1.14 (0.92, 1.41) | 1.02 (0.91, 1.13) | A | 1.18 (0.76, 1.83) | 1.30 (0.84, 2.02) | 1.63 (1.09, 2.44) ∗ |
| 1.23 (0.99, 1.52) | 1.10 (0.98, 1.22) | 1.08 (0.97, 1.20) | C | 1.10 (0.86, 1.41) | 1.38 (1.17, 1.64) ∗ |
| 1.25 (0.99, 1.56) | 1.11 (0.98, 1.26) | 1.09 (0.97, 1.24) | 1.01 (0.90, 1.15) | B | 1.25 (1.05, 1.50) ∗ |
| 1.31 (1.07, 1.61) ∗ | 1.17 (1.08, 1.27) ∗ | 1.15 (1.07, 1.24) ∗ | 1.07 (0.99, 1.15) | 1.05 (0.96, 1.16) | F |
Note: A, manual acupuncture; B, acupoint catgut embedding; C, acupoint herbal application; D, San-Fu-Tie; E, acupuncturing the sphenopalatine ganglion acupoint; F, western medicine. The values in the lower triangle and upper triangle of the table suggest the OR of the column index compared with that of the row index. The lower left is the effective rate at the end of treatment, and the upper right is the effective rate at follow-up. Bold color and marked ∗ OR > 1.00 and is statistically significant.