Skip to main content

Table 3 Effect estimates and quality of evidence ratings for comparisons in pairwise meta-analyses on alleviation of global symptoms

From: Chinese herbal medicine for functional dyspepsia: a network meta-analysis of prokinetic-controlled randomised trials

Outcome

Study design

(Number of participants)

Risk of bias

Inconsistency

Indirectness

Imprecision

Publication bias

Pooled result

(95% CI)

Quality

Alleviation of global symptoms

(4-week follow-up)

20 RCTs

(1924 participants)

No serious

No serious

No serious

Serious

Strongly suspected

RD: 0.14

(0.10, 0.19)

Trim and fill adjusted RD: 0.10 (0.05, 0.15)

RR: 1.21

(1.11, 1.25)

Low

Alleviation of global symptoms

(4-week follow-up)

(Included only RCTs on CHM versus domperidone)

17 RCTs

(1688 participants)

No serious

No serious

No serious

Serious

Strongly suspected

RD: 0.16

(0.10, 0.21)

Trim and fill adjusted RD: 0.12 (0.06, 0.17)

RR: 1.20

(1.13, 1.28)

Low

Alleviation of global symptoms

(4-week follow-up) (Included only RCTs on CHM versus mosapride)

3 RCTs

(234 participants)

No serious

No serious

No serious

Very serious

Not applicable

RD: 0.07

(− 0.03, 0.17)

RR: 1.08

(0.96, 1.21)

Low

Alleviation of global symptoms

(2-week follow-up)

7 RCTs

(692 participants)

No serious

No serious

No serious

Serious

Not applicable

RD: 0.14

(0.04, 0.23)

RR: 1.18

(1.04, 1.35)

Moderate

Alleviation of global symptoms

(2-week follow-up)

(Included only RCTs on CHM versus domperidone)

6 RCTs

(512 participants)

No serious

No serious

No serious

Serious

Not applicable

RD: 0.11

(0.02, 0.20)

RR: 1.13

(1.01, 1.26)

Moderate

  1. CHM Chinese herbal medicine, CI Confidence interval, RCT Randomised controlled trial, RD risk difference, RR risk ratio