Table 5.
Results of evidence quality.
| Reviews | Intervention | Outcomes (number of studies) | Synthesis of results | Limitations | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Publication bias | Quality of evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qiao J,2015 | Acupuncture + kinesitherapy vs kinewsitherapy | Effective rate (18) | OR = 5.46, 95% CI (3.71, 8.03), I2 = 0%, P < .00001 |
−1 | 0 | 0 | −1 | 0 | Low |
| FMA (17) | OR = 8.69, 95% CI (6.78, 10.60), I2 = 88%, P < .00001 |
−1 | −1 | 0 | −1 | 0 | Very low | ||
| VAS (14) | OR = −1.62, 95% CI (−2.10, −1.15), I2 = 90%, P < .00001 | −1 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | ||
| Xu Y et al,2013 | Acupuncture + rehabilitation training vs rehabilitation training Duration = 3 weeks | FMA (2) | WMD = 12.53, 95% CI (4.56, 20.49), I2=68%, P = .002 | −1 | −1 | 0 | −1 | 0 | Very low |
| Duration = 4 weeks | FMA (6) | WMD = 7.25, 95% CI (3.38,11.12), I2=35%, P = .0002 | −1 | 0 | 0 | −1 | 0 | Low | |
| Duration = 5 weeks | FMA (2) | WMD = 7.06, 95% CI (5.66, 8.47), I2=0%, P < .00001 |
−1 | 0 | 0 | −1 | 0 | Very low | |
| Duration = 6 weeks | FMA (1) | WMD = 13.86, 95% CI (11.17,16.55), P < .00001 | −1 | −1 | 0 | −1 | 0 | Very low | |
| Duration = 8 weeks | FMA (1) | WMD = 15.28, 95% CI (13.81, 16.75), P < .00001 | −1 | −1 | 0 | −1 | 0 | Very low | |
| Acupuncture + rehabilitation training vs rehabilitation training Duration = 2 weeks | VAS (1) | WMD = −1.40, 95%CI (−1.7l, −1), I2=0%, P < .00001 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | |
| Duration = 5 weeks | VAS (2) | WMD = −1.88, 95%CI (−3.08, 0.68), I2=38%, P = .002 |
−1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | |
| Duration = 8 weeks | VAS (1) | WMD = −1.78, 95%CI (−2.47, −1.09), P < .00001 | −1 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | |
| Acupuncture + Rehabilitation training vs Rehabilitation training Duration = 3 weeks | ADL (1) | WMD = 9.33, 95%CI (1.14, 17.52), P = .03 | −1 | −1 | 0 | −1 | −1 | Very low | |
| Duration = 5 weeks | ADL (2) | WMD = 15.17, 95%CI (12.00, 18.3), I2=0%, P < .00001 | −1 | 0 | 0 | −1 | −1 | Very low | |
| Duration = 8 weeks | ADL (1) | WMD = 18.49, 95%CI (15.15, 21.83), P < .00001 | −1 | −1 | 0 | −1 | −1 | Very low | |
| Su MY,2019 | Warm acupuncture + Rehabilitation training vs Rehabilitation training | Total effective rate (10) | OR = 3.86, 95%CI (2.58, 5.79), I2 = 0%, P < .00001 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | −1 | Low |
| Effective rate (9) | OR = 1.42, 95%CI (0.79, 2.55), I2 = 66%, P = .24 | −1 | −1 | 0 | −1 | −1 | Very low | ||
| Marked effective rate (9) | OR = 2.15, 95%CI (1.20, 3.83), I2 = 53%, P = .03 | −1 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | ||
| FMA(9) | OR = 8.28, 95%CI (−0.57, 17.12), I2 = 100%, P < .00001 | −1 | −1 | 0 | −1 | −1 | Very low | ||
| VAS (7) | OR = −1.23, 95%CI (−1.80, −0.66), I2 = 87%, P < .00001 | −1 | −1 | 0 | −1 | 0 | Very low | ||
| Peng L et al,2017 | Acupuncture + Rehabilitation training vs Rehabilitation training | VAS (9) | MD = 1.49, 95% CI (1.15, 1.82), I2 = 71%, P < .00001 |
−1 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low |
| FMA (38) | MD = 8.42, 95% CI (6.74, 10.10), I2 = 94%, P < .00001 |
−1 | −1 | 0 | −1 | 0 | Very low | ||
| ADL (6) | SMD = 1.31, 95% CI (0.57, 2.05), I2 = 95%, P < .00001 | −1 | −1 | 0 | −1 | 0 | Very low | ||
| Liu,2019 | Acupuncture + Rehabilitation training vs Rehabilitation training | FMA (29) | MD = 8.01, 95% CI (6.69, 9.33), I2 = 78%, P < .00001 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate |
| VAS (25) | MD = 1.59, 95% CI (1.86, 1.32), I2 = 87%, P < .00001 |
−1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | ||
| ADL (11) | MD = 9.99, 95% CI (5.91, 14.06), I2 = 86%, P < .00001 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | ||
| ROM (3) | MD = 11.9, 95%CI (9.44, 14.45), I2 = 0%, P = .001 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | ||
| Effective rate (9) | OR = 1.42, 95%CI (0.79, 2.55), I2 = 66%, P = .24 | −1 | −1 | 0 | −1 | −1 | Very low | ||
| Marked effective rate (9) | OR = 2.15, 95%CI (1.20, 3.83), I2 = 53%, P = .03 | −1 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low | ||
| FM (9) | MD = 8.28, 95% CI (−0.57, 17.12), I2 = 100%, P = .07 | −1 | −1 | 0 | −1 | −1 | Very low | ||
| VAS(7) | MD = −1.23, 95% CI (−1.80, −0.66), I2 = 97%,P < .0001 | −1 | −1 | 0 | −1 | 0 | Very low | ||
| Liu,2015 | Acupuncture vs Rehabilitation training | Effective rate (4) | RR = 1.11, 95%CI (0.96, 1.29), I2 = 0%, P = .35 |
−1 | 0 | 0 | −1 | 0 | Low |
| FMA(4) | MD = −0.78, 95%CI (−4.58, 3.01), I2 = 0%, P = .69 | −1 | 0 | 0 | −1 | 0 | Low | ||
| ADL(4) | MD = 3.76, 95%CI (−4.94, 12.46), I2 = 61%, P = .40 | −1 | −1 | 0 | −1 | −1 | Very low | ||
| Acupuncture + drug vs Rehabilitation training + drug | Effective rate (2) | RR = 1.27, 95%CI (1.02, 1.59), I2 = 0%, P = .04 | −1 | 0 | 0 | −1 | 0 | Low | |
| VAS(2) | MD = −2.13, 95%CI (−3.63, −0.62), I2 = 60%, P = .006 | −1 | −1 | 0 | 0 | −1 | Very low | ||
| FMA(2) | MD = 4.72,95%CI (−9.20, 18.65), I2 = 74%, P = .51 | −1 | −1 | 0 | −1 | −1 | Very low |
ADL = activities of daily living scale, FMA = Fugl–Meyer assessment upper extremity scale, MD = mean difference, OR = odds ratio, RR = relative risk, SMD = standard mean difference, VAS = visual analog scale, WMD = weighted mean difference.