Table 5: The result of meta-analysis regarding the effectiveness of CPA+BBR versus CPA.

IndicesSMD95CIPTrials involved

BMI◆6♣6◆7♣7-0.235-0.681~0.2110.302No. 6, No. 7, No. 8

WHR◆6♣6◆7♣7-0.942-1.755~-0.1290.023No. 6, No. 7, No. 8

FSH2.807-2.688~8.3010.317No. 6, No. 8

LH◆6-0.723-1.111~-0.3350.001No. 6, No. 8

T◆6♣6-0.484-1.062~0.0930.100No. 6, No. 8

FPG◆6◆7-0.688-0.936~-0.4410.001No. 6, No. 7, No. 8, No. 9

FIN◆6◆7♣7-0.620-0.893~-0.3480.001No. 6, No. 7, No. 9

HOMA-IR◆6◆7♣7-0.713-1.026~-0.4000.001No. 6, No. 7, No. 8

TC◆6◆7♣7-3.816-6.188~-1.4440.002No. 6, No. 7, No. 8, No. 9

TG◆6◆7♣7-1.516-2.112~-0.9200.001No. 6, No. 7, No. 8, No. 9

LDL-C◆6◆7-1.173-1.661~-0.6850.001No. 6, No. 7, No. 9

HDL-C◆6◆71.4521.152~1.7520.001No. 6, No. 7, No. 9

Notes:
significant statistical difference (P<0.05) between final value and baseline in CPA+BBR group was reported by trial No. x.
significant statistical difference (P<0.05) between final value and baseline in CPA group was reported by trial No. x.
Statistical difference between final value and baseline in each group was not reported in trial No. 8 and 9.
:fixed effect model;:random effect model.
: P>0.05; : P<0.05; : P<0.01; : P<0.001.
: CPA+BBR group showed a greater change than CPA before and after treatment.