Table 5.

Results of the reticulated meta-analysis of total efficiency.

C	−0.03 (−0.43, 0.36)	−0.11 (−0.34, 0.12)	−0.13 (−0.33, 0.08)	−0.13 (−0.33, 0.08)	−0.19 (−0.37, −0.01)	−0.22 (−0.52, 0.08)	−0.25 (−0.48, −0.02)	−0.29 (−0.44, −0.14)
0.03 (−0.36, 0.43)	D	−0.08 (−0.49, 0.33)	−0.09 (−0.49, 0.30)	−0.09 (−0.49, 0.31)	−0.16 (−0.54, 0.23)	−0.19 (−0.64, 0.27)	−0.21 (−0.62, 0.19)	−0.25 (−0.62, 0.11)
0.11 (−0.12, 0.34)	0.08 (−0.33, 0.49)	L	−0.01 (−0.24, 0.21)	−0.01 (−0.24, 0.22)	−0.08 (−0.28, 0.13)	−0.11 (−0.43, 0.21)	−0.14 (−0.38, 0.11)	−0.18 (−0.35, 0.00)
0.13 (−0.08, 0.33)	0.09 (−0.30, 0.49)	0.01 (−0.21, 0.24)	G	0.00 (−0.14, 0.14)	−0.07 (−0.21, 0.08)	−0.09 (−0.36, 0.18)	−0.12 (−0.34, 0.10)	−0.16 (−0.30, −0.02)
0.13 (−0.08, 0.33)	0.09 (−0.31, 0.49)	0.01 (−0.22, 0.24)	−0.00 (−0.14, 0.14)	E	−0.07 (−0.21, 0.08)	−0.09 (−0.33, 0.14)	−0.12 (−0.35, 0.10)	−0.16 (−0.31, −0.02)
0.19 (0.01, 0.37)	0.16 (−0.23, 0.54)	0.08 (−0.13, 0.28)	0.07 (−0.08, 0.21)	0.07 (−0.08, 0.21)	H	−0.03 (−0.30, 0.24)	−0.06 (−0.26, 0.14)	−0.10 (−0.20, 0.00)
0.22 (−0.08, 0.52)	0.19 (−0.27, 0.64)	0.11 (−0.21, 0.43)	0.09 (−0.18, 0.36)	0.09 (−0.14, 0.33)	0.03 (−0.24, 0.30)	N	−0.03 (−0.35, 0.29)	−0.07 (−0.33, 0.20)
0.25 (0.02, 0.48)	0.21 (−0.19, 0.62)	0.14 (−0.11, 0.38)	0.12 (−0.10, 0.34)	0.12 (−0.10, 0.35)	0.06 (−0.14, 0.26)	0.03 (−0.29, 0.35)	O	−0.04 (−0.21, 0.13)
0.29 (0.14, 0.44)	0.25 (−0.11, 0.62)	0.18 (−0.00, 0.35)	0.16 (0.02, 0.30)	0.16 (0.02, 0.31)	0.10 (−0.00, 0.20)	0.07 (−0.20, 0.33)	0.04 (−0.13, 0.21)	B

Notes. The above data represented the confidence interval. The bold font indicated that there was a statistically significant difference between the two treatments. B, Western medicine; C, acupuncture + Western medicine; D, bloodletting-cupping + Western medicine; E, acupuncture; G, fire acupuncture; H, bloodletting-cupping; L, acupoint embedding; N, electroacupuncture; O, acupoint embedding + Western medicine.