Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 4 Summary of findings

From: Efficacy of combining oral Chinese herbal medicine and NB-UVB in treating psoriasis vulgaris: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Oral CHM + NB-UVB compared to NB-UVB for psoriasis vulgaris      
Participant or population: participants with psoriasis vulgaris      
Settings: hospitals in China      
Intervention: oral CHM + NB-UVB      
Comparison: NB-UVB      
  1. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
  2. High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect
  3. Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate
  4. Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate
  5. Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate
  6. aBlindness of participants and investigators is “high risk” in all studies
  7. bAsymmetrical funnel plot and result of Egger’s test indicated potential publication bias
Outcomes Illustrative comparative risks (95 % CI) Relative effect (95 % CI) No. of participants (studies) Quality of the evidence (GRADE)
Assumed risk Corresponding risk
NB-UVB Oral CHM + NB-UVB
PASI 60 Study population RR 1.35 (1.26–1.45) 1339 (17 studies) low a,b
Follow-up 4–12 weeks 591 per 1000 797 per 1000 (744–857)
Moderate
633 per 1000 855 per 1000 (798–918)
PASI 90 Study population RR 1.71 (1.45–2.01) 1342 (17 studies) low
Follow-up 4–12 weeks 219 per 1000 375 per 1000 (318–441)
Moderate
233 per 1000 398 per 1000 (338–468)
  1. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
  2. High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect
  3. Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate
  4. Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate
  5. Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate
  6. aBlindness of participants and investigators is “high risk” in all studies
  7. bAsymmetrical funnel plot and result of Egger’s test indicated potential publication bias