Table 3.
Evaluation of GRADE evidence quality.
| Outcome indicators | 95% CI | Risk of bias | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Publication bias | Upgrade quality of evidence | Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HAMA post treatment score reduction | RR 1.03 (0.95, 1.12) | serious① | No | No | No | Undetected | None | Moderate |
| HAMD post treatment score reduction | RR 1.05 (0.99, 1.10) | serious① | serious② | No | No | Undetected | None | Low |
| Efficacy of TCM | RR 1.19 (1.13, 1.25) | serious① | No | No | No | Undetected | None | Moderate |
| SAQ | SMD 0.58 (0.33, 0.84) | serious① | serious② | No | No | Undetected | None | Low |
| Incidence of adverse reactions | RR 0.54 (0.43, 0.68) | serious① | No | No | No | Undetected | None | Moderate |
SMD is the standardized mean difference; RR is the relative risk; ① absence of allocation concealment and blinding; ② the p value of the heterogeneity test was <0.1, and I2 >50%.