Table 4.
Effect estimates and quality of evidence ratings for comparisons in pairwise meta-analyses on secondary outcomes at 4-week follow-up
| Outcome | Study design (Number of participants) |
Risk of bias | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Publication bias | Pooled result (95% CI) |
Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alleviation of postprandial fullness |
8 RCTs (609 participants) |
No serious | Serious | No serious | No serious | Not applicable |
SMD: − 1.08 (− 1.64, − 0.51) |
⨁⨁⨁◯ Moderate |
|
Alleviation of postprandial fullness (Included only RCTs on CHM versus domperidone) |
6 RCTs (489 participants) |
No serious | Serious | No serious | Serious | Not applicable |
SMD: − 0.81 (− 1.37, − 0.24) |
⨁⨁◯◯ Low |
|
Alleviation of postprandial fullness (Included only RCTs on CHM versus mosapride) |
2 RCTs (120 participants) |
No serious | Serious | No serious | Very serious | Not applicable |
SMD: − 1.97 (− 3.79, − 0.16) |
⨁◯◯◯ Very low |
| Alleviation of early satiety |
4 RCTs (326 participants) |
No serious | Serious | No serious | Very serious | Not applicable |
SMD: − 1.19 (− 2.40, 0.10) |
⨁◯◯◯ Very low |
| Alleviation of epigastric burning |
2 RCTs (154 participants) |
No serious | Serious | No serious | Very serious | Not applicable |
SMD: − 1.93 (− 4.29, 0.43) |
⨁◯◯◯ Very low |
| Alleviation of epigastric pain |
4 RCTs (326 participants) |
No serious | No serious | No serious | Very serious | Not applicable |
SMD: − 0.84 (− 1.10, − 0.58) |
⨁⨁◯◯ Low |
A negative SMD indicated an effect favouring Chinese herbal medicine, while a positive SMD indicated an effect favouring prokinetics
CI Confidence interval, RCT Randomised controlled trial, SMD Standardised mean difference