Table 6 Studies excluded from analyzes because of insufficient information
Reason for exclusion | Study | Significance for treatment group according to author |
|---|---|---|
No measure of variability | Shin 2007 | - significant for degree of nausea and vomiting |
- significant reduction for ketonuria levels over time by women with HG. | ||
| Â | Li 2010 | - significant difference (P <0.05) for the severity and frequency of nausea and vomiting). |
- ketone bodies disappeared in the 2 acupressure groups significantly faster (p < 0.05) than in the group with IV fluid therapy. | ||
| Â | Liu 2012 | - a statistically significant difference (P <0.05) for the severity and frequency of nausea and vomiting compared to IV fluid therapy. |
Data reported in Mean and interquartile range (IQR) | Rad 2012 | - statistically significant difference favouring Youmen acupressure over sham acupressure |
| Â | Heazell | - no difference between length of stay, amount of medication, or fluid required between the acupressure and placebo groups |
- acupressure reduced the number of patients who stayed more than four nights in the hospital. | ||
| Â | Knight | - no statistically significant difference between the control and intervention groups. |
Data reported in Mean rank | Steele | - The treatment group had significantly less frequency and severity of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy than the placebo group |
| Â | Can Gurkan | - Acupressure would appear to be effective in symptom control, and alleviation and placebo effects in reducing the symptoms of nausea and vomiting during pregnancy. |
Data reported only means of error bar plots | O’Brien 1996 | - No benefit of acupressure for symptom relief compared with either sham acupressure or no treatment |