TABLE 3.

GRADE summary of outcomes for blood-activating Chinese medicine to patients with intracerebral hemorrhage.

Certainty assessment							№ of patients		Effect		Certainty	Importance
No. of studies	Study design	Risk of bias	Inconsistency	Indirectness	Imprecision	Other considerations	TCM combined with WMT	WMT alone	Relative (95% CI)	Absolute (95% CI)
The clinical effective rate
6	randomized trials	serious a	not serious	not serious	not serious	none	302/274 (110.2%)	224/302 (74.2%)	RR 1.22 (1.13–1.32)	163 more per 1,000 (from 96 more to 237 more)	⊕⊕⊕○ Moderate
NIHSS - within 30 days
12	randomized trials	serious b	not serious	not serious	not serious	none	783	799	—	MD 2.73 SD lower (3.81 lower to 1.66 lower)	⊕⊕⊕○ Moderate
NIHSS - 30 days to 90 days
2	randomized trials	serious c	not serious	not serious	not serious	none	157	163	—	MD 2.82 SD lower (6.04 lower to 0.41 higher)	⊕⊕⊕○ Moderate
Barthel index
2	randomized trials	serious	not serious	not serious	not serious	none	149	155	—	MD 5.95 higher (3.92 higher to 7.98 higher)	⊕⊕⊕○ Moderate
The volume of hematoma 7 days
3	randomized trials	serious d	not serious	not serious	not serious	none	152	158	—	MD 2.34 lower (3.99 lower to 0.69 lower)	⊕⊕⊕○ Moderate
The volume of hematoma 14 days
4	randomized trials	serious e	not serious	not serious	not serious	none	122	122	—	MD 2.53 lower (3.66 lower to 1.41 lower)	⊕⊕⊕○ Moderate
The volume of hematoma 56 days
2	randomized trials	serious f	not serious	not serious	not serious	none	80	80	—	MD 2.54 lower (3.34 lower to 1.75 lower)	⊕⊕⊕○ Moderate
The volume of cerebral edema 7 days
2	randomized trials	serious g	not serious	not serious	not serious	none	83	83	—	MD 2.57 lower (3.21 lower to 1.93 lower)	⊕⊕⊕○ Moderate
The volume of cerebral edema 14 days
4	randomized trials	serious h	not serious	not serious	not serious	none	182	182	—	MD 3.8 lower (4.21 lower to 3.39 lower)	⊕⊕⊕○ Moderate

CI, confidence interval; MD, mean difference; RR, risk ratio.

^aOne RCT did not conduct the method of correct randomization, and five RCTs did not conduct allocation concealment. Only one RCT conducted double-blindness, and the rest of included RCTs did not conduct double-blindness. All RCTs have the risk of bias in the measurement of outcomes.

^bOne RCT did not conduct the method of correct randomization, eight RCTs did not conduct allocation concealment, nine did not conduct double-blindness, and have the risk of bias in measuring outcomes.

^cOne RCTs did not conduct allocation concealment and double-blindness and have the risk of bias in measuring outcomes.

^dTwo RCTs did not conduct allocation concealment and have the risk of bias in measuring outcomes.

^eThree RCTs did not conduct allocation concealment, and two RCTs did not conduct double-blindness. All RCTs have the risk of bias in the measurement of outcomes.

^fTwo RCTs did not conduct allocation concealment, one RCTs do not conduct double-blindness. All RCTs have the risk of bias in the measurement of outcomes.

^gTwo RCTs did not conduct allocation concealment and double-blindness and have the risk of bias in measuring outcomes.

^hThree RCTs did not conduct allocation concealment and double-blindness. Four RCTs did not conduct double-blindness and have the risk of bias in measuring outcomes.