Efficacy of Moxibustion for Primary Osteoporosis: A Trial Sequential Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Table 2
Quality of evidence included RCTs by GRADE.
Outcomes
Included RCTs (patients)
Relative effect (95% CI)
Quality assessment
Quality of evidence
Risk of bias
Inconsistency
Indirectness
Imprecision
Publication bias
Reduction in pain intensity
Mox vs. CM
2 (127)
MD -1.34 (−3.27 to 0.59)
−1①
−1②
0
−1③
0
Critically low
Mox plus CM vs. CM
8 (494)
MD -1.84 (−2.31 to -1.37)
−1①
−1②
0
0
0
Low
Response rate
Mox vs. CM
3 (203)
RR 1.32 (1.14 to 1.53)
−1①
0
0
−1③
0
Low
Mox plus CM vs. CM
4 (256)
RR 1.38 (1.20 to 1.59)
−1①
0
0
−1③
−1④
Critically low
Improvement in BMD
Mox vs. CM
4 (256)
MD 0.00 (0.00 to 0.01)
−1①
0
0
−1③
0
Low
Mox plus CM vs. CM
3 (199)
MD 0.02 (0.00 to 0.03)
−1①
0
0
−1③
0
Low
Improvement in ODI
Mox plus CM vs. CM
2 (118)
MD -5.99 (-10.07 to -1.92)
−1①
−1②
0
−1③
0
Critically low
Notes: Mox: moxibustion; CM: conventional medicine; BMD: bone mineral density; ODI: Oswestry disability index; MD: mean difference; RR: relative risk; ①Poor methodological quality. ②The size and direction of the effect size, the overlap of the confidence interval is small, the p value of the heterogeneity test is small, and the combined results of I2 value are large. ③Insufficient sample size. ④Significant reporting bias.
