Table 2. Summary of findings.
| Acupuncture for emotional disorders in patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Control | Acupuncture | |||||
| Acupuncture vs.sham acupuncture | SMD 0.36 lower | 237 (4 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 | As a rule of thumb, 0.2 SMD represents a small difference, 0.5 moderate, and 0.8 large. | ||
| Anxiety | (1.05 lower to 0.33 higher) | |||||
| Acupuncture vs. sham acupuncture | SMD 0.32 lower (0.71 lower to 0.07 higher) | 237 (4 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate2 | As a rule of thumb, 0.2 SMD represents a small difference, 0.5 moderate, and 0.8 large. | ||
| Depression | ||||||
| Acupuncture vs. pharmacotherapy | SMD 0.64 lower (0.94 to 0.35 lower) | 1641 (18 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low 3,4,5 | As a rule of thumb, 0.2 SMD represents a small difference, 0.5 moderate, and 0.8 large. | ||
| Anxiety | ||||||
| Acupuncture vs.pharmacotherapy | SMD 0.46 lower (0.69 lower to 0.22 lower) | 1743 (19 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low 3,4,6 | As a rule of thumb, 0.2 SMD represents a small difference, 0.5 moderate, and 0.8 large. | ||
| Depression | ||||||
| Acupuncture vs. pharmacotherapy | Study population | RR 0.56 | 847 | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ | ||
| (0.26 to 1.19) | (5 studies) | moderate 3 | ||||
| Adverse events | 58 per 1000 | 32 per 1000 (15 to 69) | ||||
*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; SMD: standard mean difference
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.
1 Substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 85%, P<0.01)
2 The sample size of each group is less than 200
3 High risk of performance and detection bias owing to nonblinding.
4 Trim-and-fill analysis was used to prove that the conclusion will not be affected by publication bias.
5 Substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 86%, P<0.01)
6 Substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 79%, P<0.01)