The Effectiveness and Safety of Thunder Fire Moxibustion for Treating Allergic Rhinitis: A PRISMA Compliant Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Table 5

Level of evidence.

Variable (study number)	Sample size (T/C)	I ^2 value (%)	P value	Risk of bias	Inconsistency	Indirectness	Imprecision	Publication bias	Effect (95% CI)	Level of evidence
Total effective rate (T = TFM) (6)	359/359	0	0.046	Serious①	Non	Non	Serious③	Non	RR = 1.07, 95% CI = [1.03, 1.12]	Low⊕⊕○○
Total effective rate(T = TFM + other treatments) (9)	366/366	53.3	0.029	Serious①	Serious②	Non	Serious③	Serious④	RR = 1.18, 95% CI = [1.11, 1.25]	Very low⊕○○○
Total symptom score (9)	225/225	59.4	0.031	Serious①	Serious②	Non	Serious③	Non	RR = 1.20, 95% CI = [1.16, 1.23]	Very low⊕○○○

T: treatment group; C: control group. ①Blind method is missing, allocation hidden report is insufficient, and random method description is not clear; ②statistical heterogeneity and clinical heterogeneity were more significant; ③the total sample size was small, and OIS was not satisfied (optimal information size); ④Egger’s test showed that , and the 95% CI [0.63, 7.86] did not contain 0, suggesting that the possibility of publication bias was bigger. ⊕⊕○○ represents the low level of evidence. ⊕○○○ represents the very low level of evidence.