Skip to main content

Table 1 Comparison of network meta-analysis and traditional meta-analysis

From: Acupuncture and moxibustion for chronic fatigue syndrome in traditional Chinese medicine: a systematic review and meta-analysis

 

CbAM

SAM

Chinese medicine

Western medicine

Placebo (Sham-acupuncture)

Treatment

T-metaa

N-metab

T-metaa

N-metab

T-metaa

N-metab

T-metaa

N-metab

T-metaa

N-metab

CbAM

–

–

1.23 (1.12–1.36)

1.10 (1.04–1.17)

1.17 (1.09–1.25)

1.23 (1.15–1.32)

–

1.68 (1.29–1.69)

–

5.84 (1.19–12.21)

SAM

–

0.91 (0.85–0.96)

–

–

1.22 (1.14–1.30)

1.12 (1.03–1.21)

1.51 (1.31–1.74)

1.53 (1.17–2.43)

5.90 (3.64–9.56)

5.31 (1.74–11.07)

Chinese medicine

–

0.81 (0.77–0.87)

–

0.89 (0.83–0.97)

–

–

–

1.20 (1.10–1.50)

–

4.00 (2.50–6.90)

Western medicine

–

0.62 (0.37–0.77)

–

0.68 (0.41–0.85)

–

0.76 (0.46–0.96)

–

–

–

3.20 (1.90–5.50)

placebo (sham-acupuncture)

–

0.21 (0.08–0.53)

–

0.24 (0.09–0.58)

–

0.26 (0.10–0.65)

–

0.37 (0.12–0.99)

–

–

  1. astands for traditional meta-analysis
  2. bstands for network meta-analysis