Skip to main content

Table 2 Pair-wised random-effects meta-analyses

From: Comparative effectiveness of six Chinese herb formulas for acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Intervention

FEV1

PaO2

PaCO2

Effective rate

No. of studies

I/C

MD,95% CI

NO. of studies

I/C

MD,95% CI

NO. of studies

I/C

MD,95% CI

NO. of studies

I/C

OR,95% CI

WJ + RP vs RP

6

212/202

0.25[0.19,0.30]

8

270/260

9.90[5.02,14.78]

8

270/260

−5.40[− 8.33,-2.46]

10

344/322

3.60[2.32,5.59]

SBP + RP vs RP

2

79/80

0.40[−0.63,1.43]

5

154/154

4.24[1.10,7.38]

5

154/154

−5.33[−9.68,-0.99]

11

426/423

3.56[2.02,6.29]

YBBX + RP vs RP

0

NA

NA

0

NA

NA

0

NA

NA

2

88/88

2.26[0.85,5.99]

DC + RP vs RP

4

136/130

0.05[− 0.04,0.15]

1

42/40

5.20[−0.15.10.55]

1

42/40

−7.40[−12.17,-2.63]

6

211/205

3.63[1.91,6.89]

QQHT + RP vs RP

3

166/166

0.34[0.10,0.58]

3

92/92

11.74[4.21,19.27]

3

92/92

−7.65[−9.34,-5.95]

7

222/222

4.29[2.18,8.46]

MXSG + RP vs RP

3

131/129

0.38[−0.05,0.80]

3

130/130

6.66[−0.55,13.86]

2

80/80

−8.80[−10.21,-7.38]

13

683/669

2.77[1.86,4.11]

  1. I/C: Sample size of intervention/control groups. MD Mean Difference, CI Confidence interval, OR Odds Ratio