Table 6.

GRADE evidence profile of outcomes.

Quality assessment							No of patients		Effect		Quality	Importance
No of studies	Design	Risk of bias	Inconsistency	Indirectness	Imprecision	Other considerations	Pain score	Control	Relative (95% CI)	Absolute
Acupuncture plus control treatment vs. control treatment (measured with: VAS/NRS/BPI; Better indicated by lower values)
11	Randomized trials	Very seriousa	Very seriousb	No serious indirectness	Seriousc	• Reporting biasd • Strong associatione	434	428	–	MD 1.34 lower (1.74–0.94 lower)	⊕OOO Very low	Critical
Acupuncture alone vs. control treatment (measured with: VAS; Better indicated by lower values)
2	Randomized trials	Very seriousf	Very seriousb	No serious indirectness	Seriousc	Noneg	102	105	–	MD 0.67 lower (1.45 lower to 0.11 higher)	⊕OOO Very low	Critical
Pain relief rate (assessed with: Based on the pain score)
8	Randomized trials	Very seriousa	Serioush	No serious indirectness	Seriousc	Noneg	285/310 (91.9%)	229/307 (74.6%)	OR 4.4 (2.64–7.33)	182 more per 1,000 (from 140 more to 210 more)	⊕OOO Very low	Important
								80%		146 more per 1,000 (from 113 more to 167 more)
Analgesic oneset time (measured with: Analgesic oneset time; Better indicated by lower values)
2	Randomized trials	Very seriousi	Very seriousb	No serious indirectness	Seriousc	Noneg	83	80	–	MD 11.27 lower (15.36–7.18 lower)	⊕OOO Very low	Important
Analgesia duration (measured with: Analgesia duration; Better indicated by lower values)
2	Randomized trials	Very seriousi	Very seriousb	No serious indirectness	Seriousc	Noneg	83	80	–	MD 3.3 higher (2.82–3.79 higher)	⊕OOO Very low	Important
Global health status (measured with: EORTC QLQ-C30; Better indicated by lower values)
3	Randomized trials	Very seriousa	No serious inconsistency	No serious indirectness	Seriousc	Noneg	155	152	–	MD 9.61 higher (8.44–10.78 higher)	⊕OOO Very low	Not important
Physical functioning (measured with: EORTC QLQ-C30; Better indicated by lower values)
3	Randomized trials	Very seriousa	Very seriousb	No serious indirectness	Seriousc	Noneg	155	152	–	MD 6.79 higher (1.27–12.31 higher)	⊕OOO Very low	Not important
Pain (measured with: EORTC QLQ-C30; Better indicated by lower values)
2	Randomized trials	Very seriousa	Very seriousb	No serious indirectness	Seriousc	Noned	83	80	–	MD 12.05 lower (23.84–0.26 lower)	⊕OOO Very low	Not important
Emotional (measured with: EORTC QLQ-C30; Better indicated by lower values)
2	Randomized trials	Very seriousa	No serious inconsistency	No serious indirectness	Seriousc	Noned	112	112	–	MD 6.28 higher (4.3–8.27 higher)	⊕OOO Very low	Not important
Cognitive (measured with: EORTC QLQ-C30; Better indicated by lower values)
2	Randomized trials	Very seriousa	Very seriousb	No serious indirectness	Seriousc	Noned	112	112	–	MD 5.44 higher (5.82 lower to 16.7 higher)	⊕OOO Very low	Not important
KPS (measured with: KPS; Better indicated by lower values)
3	Randomized trials	Very seriousa	Seriousb	No serious indirectness	Seriousc	Noned	100	100	–	MD 9.85 higher (3.18–16.52 higher)	⊕OOO Very low	Not important

^aThese studies were affected by several factors, such as performance bias, detection bias, and reporting bias.

^bThere was high heterogeneity across studies.

^cThe sample was small.

^dExist publication bias.

^eThe number of total patients was over 800.

^fThe study by Su had selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, and reporting bias; the study by Tai had detection bias, attrition bias, and other bias.

^gThe number of included studies was small.

^hApply different acupuncture techniques across studies.

ⁱTwo studies did not mention allocation concealment, blinding, and have reporting bias.