Table 2.
Pairwise Meta-Analysis of Reduction in VAS Score
| Comparison | Number | SMD (95% CI) | I2 (%) | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A vs B | 4 | −0.17(−1.25,0.91) | 93 | <0.00001 |
| A vs D | 2 | 1.03(0.53,1.53) | 0 | 0.51 |
| A vs E | 4 | 0.24(−0.42,0.89) | 83 | 0.0006 |
| A vs F | 3 | 1.05(0.67,1.43) | 0 | 0.39 |
| A vs I | 1 | −1.44(−1.86,-1.02) | – | – |
| A vs M | 1 | −0.67(−1.19,-0.15) | – | – |
| A vs N | 2 | −0.31(−0.68,0.06) | 0 | 0.87 |
| A vs O | 2 | −2.29(−2.64,-1.94) | 0 | 0.92 |
| B vs D | 1 | 0.65(0.13,1.17) | – | – |
| B vs E | 1 | 0.63(−0.39,1.64) | – | – |
| B vs G | 1 | −0.59(−1.21,0.03) | – | – |
| B vs L | 1 | −1.34(−2.01,-0.66) | – | – |
| C vs D | 2 | 0.98(0.37,1.60) | 80 | 0.03 |
| C vs F | 1 | 1.39(0.97,1.81) | – | – |
| D vs F | 1 | 0.10(−1.03,1.24) | – | – |
| D vs I | 1 | −1.30(−1.80,-0.79) | – | – |
| D vs J | 1 | −1.79(−2.20,-1.38) | – | – |
| D vs N | 1 | −1.13(−2.28,0.03) | – | – |
| D vs O | 1 | −1.29(−1.68,-0.89) | – | – |
| E vs F | 1 | 0.70(0.13,1.27) | – | – |
| E vs H | 1 | −1.37(−1.88,-0.86) | – | – |
| F vs K | 1 | −1.50(−2.01,-0.99) | – | – |
| F vs N | 1 | −1.18(−2.39,0.04) | – | – |
| G vs L | 1 | −0.73(−1.36,-0.11) | – | – |
| G vs M | 1 | −1.32(−1.89,-0.76) | – | – |
Notes: The bold font indicates a statistical difference. A = manual acupuncture; B = electroacupuncture; C = moxibustion; D = conventional medicines; E = placebo; F = routine care; G = warm acupuncture; H = auricular needling; I = fire acupuncture; J = electroacupuncture plus conventional medicines; K = electroacupuncture plus moxibustion; L = electroacupuncture plus warm acupuncture; M = manual acupuncture plus moxibustion; N = manual acupuncture plus conventional medicines; O = fire acupuncture plus manual acupuncture.