Efficacy and Safety of Wenxin Granules and Propafenone in Treatment of Atrial Premature Beats: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Table 4

Summary of main findings of Wenxin granules and propafenone treating APB.

Wenxin granules (or plus propafenone) vs propafenone for APB
Patient or population: Patients with APB settings: Outpatient or inpatient intervention: Wenxin granules (or plus propafenone) vs propafenone
Outcomes	Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	No of Participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Control	Wenxin granules vs propafenone
Clinical efficacy: low-dose propafenone + Wenxin granules vs low-dose propafenone	728 per 1000	913 per 1000 (845 to 952)	OR 3.89 (2.03 to 7.44)	322 (3 studies)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low^1,2
Clinical efficacy: high-dose propafenone + Wenxin granules vs high-dose propafenone	806 per 1000	946 per 1000 (845 to 983)	OR 4.24 (1.32 to 13.6)	146 (2 studies)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low^1,2
Clinical efficacy: Wenxin granules vs low-dose propafenone	686 per 1000	848 per 1000 (745 to 914)	OR 2.56 (1.34 to 4.89)	240 (2 studies)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low^1,2
Clinical efficacy: Wenxin granules vs high-dose propafenone	807 per 1000	830 per 1000 (731 to 898)	OR 1.17 (0.65 to 2.11)	306 (3 studies)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low^1,3
Clinical efficacy: Wenxin granules vs propafenone	845 per 1000	917 per 1000 (812 to 966)	OR 2.01 (0.79 to 5.13)	180 (1 study)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low^1,2

The basis for the assumed risk (e.g., the median control group risk across studies) is as follows: the corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; OR: odds ratio; GRADE: working group grades of evidence. High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. 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. Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate. ¹There were very serious limitations of methodological quality of included trials according to the risk of bias assessment. No explanation was provided. ² There were very serious limitations of imprecision. The number of incidents was less than 200 or had a wide 95% confidence interval. ³ There were serious limitations of imprecision. The number of incidents was less than 400, or the 95% confidence interval contained 1.