Table 3.
Summary of overall meta-analyses and subgroup analyses.
| Factor | Outcome or subgroup | No. of studies | Effect (95% CI) | I 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CPR | ||||
| Type of control group | Mock intervention | 9 | 1.66 (1.42,1.95) | 0% |
| No TEAS | 12 | 1.34 (1.22,1.47) | 17.9% | |
| Risk of bias | Low risk | 5 | 1.26 (1.14,1.39) | 13.6% |
| Some concerns | 12 | 1.78 (1.54,2.06) | 0% | |
| High risk | 2 | 1.32 (1.02,1.70) | 0% | |
| Total | 19 | 1.42 (1.31,1.54) | 26.3% | |
| HQER | ||||
| Type of control group | Mock intervention | 5 | 1.10 (1.04,1.16) | 0% |
| No TEAS | 4 | 1.08 (1.00,1.17) | 31.0% | |
| Risk of bias | Some concerns | 6 | 1.10 (1.04,1.16) | 30.6% |
| High risk | 1 | 1.08 (1.00,1.16) | / | |
| Total | 7 | 1.09 (1.05,1.14) | 20.2% | |
| LBR | ||||
| Type of control group | Mock intervention | 5 | 1.73 (1.37,2.17) | 0% |
| No TEAS | 4 | 1.23 (1.09,1.39) | 34.3% | |
| Risk of bias | Low risk | 4 | 1.22 (1.07,1.38) | 28.9% |
| Some concerns | 3 | 1.86 (1.46,2.36) | 0% | |
| High risk | 1 | 1.20 (0.78,1.87) | / | |
| Total | 8 | 1.42 (1.19,1.69) | 52.0% | |
| BPR | ||||
| Type of control group | Mock intervention | 4 | 1.63 (1.35,1.96) | 0% |
| No TEAS | 6 | 1.35 (1.10,1.67) | 49% | |
| Risk of bias | Low risk | 1 | 1.08 (0.94,1.25) | / |
| Some concerns | 7 | 1.57 (1.36,1.82) | 0% | |
| High risk | 1 | 1.45 (0.97,2.18) | / | |
| Total | 9 | 1.45 (1.22,1.71) | 53.2% | |
| EMR | ||||
| Type of control group | Mock intervention | 3 | 0.60 (0.24,1.51) | 0% |
| No TEAS | 4 | 1.16 (0.85,1.58) | 2.2% | |
| Risk of bias | Low risk | 2 | 1.22 (0.88,1.68) | 46.7% |
| Some concerns | 2 | 0.65 (0.29,1.47) | 0% | |
| High risk | 1 | 0.44 (0.08,2.43) | / | |
| Total | 5 | 1.08 (0.80,1.45) | 17.3% | |
| BDR | ||||
| Total | 1 | 0.93 (0.13,6.54) | / |
No., number; CPR, clinical pregnancy rate; HQER, high-quality embryo rate; LBR, live birth rate; BPR, biochemical pregnancy rate; EMR, early miscarriage rate; BDR, birth defects rate; TEAS, transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation.