Skip to main content
. 2022 Oct 27;2022:2094589. doi: 10.1155/2022/2094589

Table 5.

The individual quality components of GRADE of included SRs.

Included study Type of Study Outcomes Downgrading factors Outcome
Risk of bias Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Publication bias Quality of evidence
Li [24] (2009) RCT (6) serious no no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
(3) serious no no no strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕
Yan [19] (2015) RCT (1) serious no no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
(8) serious no no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
Yao [22] (2016) RCT (1) serious no no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
Liang [41] (2016) RCT (1) serious very serious no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
(2) serious no no no strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕
(3) serious no no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
(7) serious very serious no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
Chen [33] (2016) RCT (4) serious no no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
An [38] (2016) RCT (1) very serious serious no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
(3) very serious serious no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
Luo [39] (2016) RCT (1) very serious serious no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
(3) very serious serious no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
(4) very serious serious no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
Liu [35] (2017) RCT/CCT (4) serious serious no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
Pu [28] (2017) RCT (3) serious no no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
(4) serious no no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
Zhang [31] (2018) RCT (1) serious no no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
(5) serious no no no strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕
(6) serious no no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
Liang [32] (2018) RCT/quasi-RCT/CCT (4) serious no no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
(6) serious no no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
Zhu [21] (2018) RCT (4) serious no no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
(10) serious serious no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
Li [37] (2018) RCT (1) serious serious no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
(3) serious no no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
(6) serious serious no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
Wei [26] (2019) RCT (3) serious no no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
(4) serious no no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
(6) serious no no serious undetected ⊕⊕⊕
Zhao [40] (2019) RCT (1) serious no no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
(3) serious no no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
(6) serious no no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
(7) serious no no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
(10) serious serious no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
Li [36] (2019) RCT (3) serious no no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
(6) serious no no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
Wu [29] (2019) RCT (1) serious serious no serious undetected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
(3) serious no no serious undetected ⊕⊕⊕
Zhao [30] (2019) RCT/CCT (1) serious no no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
(3) serious no no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
(4) serious no no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
Yao [20] (2019) RCT (1) serious serious no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
(11) serious no no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
Zhao [27] (2020) RCT (1) serious no no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
(3) serious no no no strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕
(10) serious serious no serious strongly suspected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
Zhang [34] (2020) RCT/quasi-RCT (1) serious no no no undetected ⊕⊕
(3) serious no no no undetected ⊕⊕
(6) serious no no no undetected ⊕⊕
Xiao [23] (2020) RCT (1) very serious serious no serious undetected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
(3) very serious no no serious undetected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
Ke [25] (2021) RCT (1) serious no no serious undetected ⊕⊕⊕⊕
(4) serious no no serious undetected ⊕⊕⊕⊕

Note: represents the primary outcome measure, which determines the overall quality of the article; ⊕ represents the ranking of quality as high, ⊕⊕ represents the ranking of quality as moderate, ⊕⊕⊕ represents the ranking of quality as low, and ⊕⊕⊕⊕ represents the ranking of quality as very low. (1) Risk of Bias: the included study has large biases in terms of randomization, allocation concealment, blinding, and loss of follow-up. (2) Inconsistency: the overlapping of confidence intervals of different studies is poor, and the I2 value of the combined results is large. (3) Indirectness: differences in populations, interventions, and outcomes. (4) Imprecision: the sample size of the included studies was too small and the confidence interval was wide. (5) Publication bias: funnel diagram shows asymmetry, gray literature was not retrieved and the search database is incomplete.Outcomes: (1) total efficiency: according to the severity of clinical symptoms using 4 scores; the total score is the sum of the individual scores. Symptom Score Reducing Index (SSRI) = (total score before treatment-total score after treatment)/total score before treatment×100%; (2) adverse reaction rate; (3) recurrence rate; (4) clinical efficacy rate: the clinical complete recovery is considered to be effective, others are invalid; (5) improvement rate; (6) curing rate; (7) IgE levels; (8) the Dermatology Quality Life Index (DLQI); (9) quality of life score (QoL); (10) total improvement of clinical signs and symptoms; (11) disease activity control.