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

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

	CbAM		SAM		Chinese medicine		Western medicine		Placebo (Sham-acupuncture)
Treatment	T-meta^a	N-meta^b	T-meta^a	N-meta^b	T-meta^a	N-meta^b	T-meta^a	N-meta^b	T-meta^a	N-meta^b
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)	–	–

ISSN: 2662-7671