Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Seven Qi-Tonifying Chinese Medicine Injections for AECOPD Patients: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Table 2

Pooled estimates of the network meta-analysis on response rate and FVC.

	Response rate
FVC	RT	3.36 (1.56, 7.90)	3.72 (1.82, 7.87)	2.85 (0.60, 17.55)	2.79 (1.60, 5.05)	4.00 (1.34, 13.63)	3.98 (1.57, 11.14)	2.62 (0.18, 88.25)
	−0.63 (−1.04, −0.22)	CKZ + RT	1.10 (0.36, 3.26)	0.86 (0.15, 5.94)	0.83 (0.30, 2.20)	1.20 (0.30, 4.87)	1.19 (0.34, 4.33)	0.78 (0.05, 27.79)
	0.07 (−0.31, 0.51)	0.70 (0.15, 1.31)	HQ + RT	0.76 (0.14, 5.41)	0.75 (0.30, 1.90)	1.07 (0.29, 4.41)	1.07 (0.32, 3.73)	0.70 (0.04, 25.22)
	—	—	—	KA + RT	0.98 (0.15, 5.26)	1.40 (0.17, 10.23)	1.39 (0.18, 9.25)	0.90 (0.04, 38.29)
	—	—	—	—	SF + RT	1.43 (0.41, 5.53)	1.43 (0.47, 4.62)	0.94 (0.06, 32.96)
	−0.36 (−0.78, 0.06)	0.27 (−0.31, 0.86)	−0.43 (−1.04, 0.13)	—	—	SGM + RT	0.99 (0.21, 4.57)	0.65 (0.03, 25.09)
	0.75 (0.17, 1.33)	1.38 (0.67, 2.10)	0.68 (−0.06, 1.36)	—	—	1.11 (0.39, 1.83)	SM + RT	0.65 (0.04, 24.60)
	−0.21 (−0.55, 0.11)	0.42 (−0.11, 0.95)	−0.28 (−0.84, 0.21)	—	—	0.15 (−0.39, 0.68)	−0.96 (−1.64, −0.29)	SQFZ + RT

Values in bold indicate statistical difference.