Review Article
The Effectiveness of Acupuncture in Management of Functional Constipation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Table 3
GRADE evaluation: acupuncture compared to sham acupuncture.
| | Condition | No. of participants (studies) | Design | Limitations | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Other considerations | MD or SMD or RR (95% CI) | Quality |
| | CSBM | 1171 (3) | RCT | No serious | Serious | No serious | No serious | Reporting bias | 0.84 (0.65 to 1.03) | Low | | BSFS | 1224 (3) | RCT | No serious | Serious | No serious | No serious | Reporting bias | 0.24 (0.15 to 0.34) | Low | | CSS | 432 (4) | RCT | Serious | Serious | Serious | Serious | Reporting bias | −0.42 (−0.81 to −0.02) | Very low | | PAC-QOL | 1075 (1) | RCT | No serious | No serious | No serious | No serious | Reporting bias | −0.33 (−0.45 to −0.21) | Moderate | | Responder rate | 1262 (3) | RCT | No serious | Serious | No serious | No serious | Reporting bias | 2.16 (1.1 to 4.24) | Low | | Safety evaluation | 1627 (7) | RCT | Serious | No serious | No serious | No serious | None | 1.21 (0.78 to 1.87) | Moderate |
|
|
RCT, randomized controlled trial; MD, mean difference; SMD, standard mean difference; RR, relative risk; CI, confidence interval.
|
