Table 2.
GRADE quality grading evaluation.
| Quality assessment | No of patients | Quality | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No of studies | Design | Risk of bias | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Publication bias | Experimental group | Control group | |
| Clinical efficacy (Acupuncture+Routine treatment vs Routine treatment) | |||||||||
| 3 | Randomized | Serious a | No serious inconsistency | No serious indirectness | Serious b | None | 82/95 (86.3%) | 71/95 (74.7%) | ⊕⊕◯◯ Low |
| FSS (Acupuncture+Routine treatment vs Routine treatment) | |||||||||
| 4 | Randomized | Serious a | No serious inconsistency | No serious inconsistency | Serious b | None | 145 | 144 | ⊕⊕◯◯ Low |
| FMA (Acupuncture+Routine treatment vs Routine treatment) | |||||||||
| 2 | Randomized | Serious a | No serious inconsistency | No serious inconsistency | Serious b | None | 85 | 84 | ⊕⊕◯◯ Low |
Notes: aRisk of bias: the quality of all included studies is not high; bImprecision: small sample size. GRADE: the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation; FSS: Fatigue Severity Scale;FMA: Fugl-Meyer Assessment.