Table 4.
Pairwise meta-analysis of efficacy rate.
| Comparison | Number | RR (95% CI) | P | I 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MA vs WM | 2 | 1.10 [0.89, 1.37] | .3825 | 85.0% |
| MA vs UC | 1 | 1.12 [0.93, 1.35] | .2335 | – |
| EA vs SA | 1 | 1.46 [0.80, 2.67] | .2204 | – |
| EA vs WM | 2 | 1.19 [0.99, 1.44] | .0621 | 69.6% |
| EA vs UC | 1 | 1.17 [0.93, 1.48] | .1730 | – |
| EA vs MA | 15 | 1.12 [1.08, 1.17] | <.0001 | 0% |
| WA vs MA | 5 | 1.13 [1.06, 1.20] | .0003 | 4.4% |
| WA vs EA | 2 | 1.14 [1.00, 1.31] | .0580 | 0% |
| FA vs MA | 2 | 1.28 [1.16, 1.42] | <.0001 | 0% |
| FA vs EA | 1 | 1.22 [0.98, 1.52] | .0788 | – |
| ACE vs MA | 7 | 1.12 [1.05, 1.20] | .0009 | 42.4% |
| ACE vs EA | 1 | 1.12 [0.93, 1.35] | .2335 | – |
ACE = acupoint catgut embedding, CI = confidence interval, EA = electroacupuncture, FA = fire acupuncture, MA = manual acupuncture, RR = relative risk, SA = sham acupuncture, UC = usual care, WA = warm acupuncture, WM = Western medicine.