Efficacy and Safety of Zhenwu Decoction in the Treatment of Diabetic Nephropathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Table 4

Evidence quality for ZWD combined with CWM for the treatment of DN.

ZWD plus CWM for DN
Patient or population: (patients with DN)
Setting: all eligible patients with intervention therapy
Intervention: (ZWD + CWM,CWM)
Outcomes	Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI)		Relative effects (95% CI)	No. of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Control	ZWD + CWM
The effective rate	Study population		OR 3.88 (2.87 to 5.26)	1347 (13 studies)	⊕⊕⊕Ο moderate^ac
	199 per 1000	202 per 1000 (169 to 223)
	Moderate
	187per 1000	213 per 1000 (180 to 240)
FBG	See comment	See comment	The mean was MD −0.72 lower (−0.97 to −0.48 lower)	1287 (12 RCTS)	⊕⊕⊕Ο moderate^ab
BUN	See comment	See comment	The mean was MD −1.92 lower (−3.19 to −0.64 lower)	324 (4RCTS)	⊕⊕⊕Ο moderate^ab
24 h urine protein	See comment	See comment	The mean was MD −0.48 lower (−0.57 to −0.39 lower)	934 (8 RCTS)	⊕⊕⊕Ο moderate^ab
Ccr	See comment	See comment	The mean was MD −0.64 lower (−8.21 to 6.92)	683 (6 RCTS)	⊕⊕ΟΟ low^abc
Scr	See comment	See comment	The mean was MD −51.17 lower (−66.95 to −35.39 lower)	902 (8 RCTS)	⊕⊕⊕Ο moderate^ab

The basis for the assumed risk (e.g., the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. 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 the effect. Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of the 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 the effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate. Explanations: (a) no blinding. (b) High heterogeneity. (c)  < 0.05 in Egger’s test.