Table 3.
GRADE evaluation: acupuncture compared to sham acupuncture.
| Condition | No. of participants (studies) | Design | Limitations | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Other considerations | MD or SMD or RR (95% CI) | Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CSBM | 1171 (3) | RCT | No serious | Serious | No serious | No serious | Reporting bias | 0.84 (0.65 to 1.03) | Low |
| BSFS | 1224 (3) | RCT | No serious | Serious | No serious | No serious | Reporting bias | 0.24 (0.15 to 0.34) | Low |
| CSS | 432 (4) | RCT | Serious | Serious | Serious | Serious | Reporting bias | −0.42 (−0.81 to −0.02) | Very low |
| PAC-QOL | 1075 (1) | RCT | No serious | No serious | No serious | No serious | Reporting bias | −0.33 (−0.45 to −0.21) | Moderate |
| Responder rate | 1262 (3) | RCT | No serious | Serious | No serious | No serious | Reporting bias | 2.16 (1.1 to 4.24) | Low |
| Safety evaluation | 1627 (7) | RCT | Serious | No serious | No serious | No serious | None | 1.21 (0.78 to 1.87) | Moderate |
RCT, randomized controlled trial; MD, mean difference; SMD, standard mean difference; RR, relative risk; CI, confidence interval.