Does Adjuvant Treatment with Chinese Herbal Medicine to Antidiabetic Agents Have Additional Benefits in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes? A System Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Table 5
Assessment of quality of evidence.
Question: Should Jinlida plus Antidiabetics versus Antidiabetics be used in Antidiabetics?
Bibliography: Jinlida plus Antidiabetics versus Antidiabetics for T2DM
Quality assessment
Summary of Findings
Participants (studies) Follow up
Risk of bias
Inconsistency
Indirectness
Imprecision
Publication bias
Overall quality of evidence
Study event rates (%)
Relative Effect (95% CI)
Anticipated absolute effects
With Control
With Jinlida Plus Antidiabetics
Risk With Control
Risk difference with Jinlida plus Antidiabetics (95% CI)
HbA1C (CRITICAL OUTCOME: better indicated by higher values)
1810 (15 studies) 12 weeks
no serious risk of
no serious inconsistency
no serious indirectness
no serious imprecision
undetected
⊕⊕⊕⊕
902
908
-
The mean hba1c in the intervention groups was 0.65 lower (0.73 to 0.56 lower)
FBG (CRITICAL OUTCOME: better indicated by higher values)
1820 (15 studies) 12 weeks
no serious risk of
no serious inconsistency
no serious indirectness
no serious imprecision
undetected
⊕⊕⊕⊕
907
913
-
The mean fbg in the intervention groups was 0.89 lower (1.08 to 0.7 lower)
2hPG (CRITICAL OUTCOME: better indicated by higher values)
1820 (15 studies) 12 weeks
no serious risk of
no serious inconsistency
no serious indirectness
no serious imprecision
undetected
⊕⊕⊕⊕
907
913
-
The mean 2hpg in the intervention groups was 1.62 lower (1.93 to 1.32 lower)
HOMA- (IMPORTANT OUTCOME: better indicated by lower values)
992 (7 studies) 12 weeks
no serious inconsistency
no serious indirectness
no serious
reporting bias strongly suspected
⊕⊕⊝⊝ due to risk of bias, publication bias
499
493
-
The mean homa-β in the intervention groups was 0.5 lower (0.62 to 0.37 lower)
Question: Should Jinlida plus Antidiabetics versus Antidiabetics be used in Antidiabetics?
Bibliography: Jinlida plus Antidiabetics versus Antidiabetics for T2DM
Quality assessment
Summary of Findings
Participants (studies) Follow up
Risk of bias
Inconsistency
Indirectness
Imprecision
Publication bias
Overall quality of evidence
Study event rates (%)
Relative Effect (95% CI)
Anticipated absolute effects
With Control
With Jinlida Plus Antidiabetics
Risk With Control
Risk difference with Jinlida plus Antidiabetics (95% CI)
HOMA-IR (IMPORTANT OUTCOME: better indicated by lower values)
1084 (8 studies) 12 weeks
no serious inconsistency
no serious
no serious
reporting bias strongly suspected
⊕⊕⊝⊝ due to risk of bias, publication bias
539
545
-
The mean homa-ir in the intervention groups was 1.82 lower (3.1 to 0.54 lower)
BMI (IMPORTANT OUTCOME: better indicated by lower values)
686 (5 studies) 12 weeks
no serious inconsistency
no serious indirectness
no serious
reporting bias strongly suspected
⊕⊕⊝⊝ due to risk of bias, publication bias
343
343
-
The mean bmi in the intervention groups was 1.07 lower (2.08 to 0.06 lower)
