Skip to main content

Table 3 Summary of finding table of herbal medicine compared to conventional medicine for women with intrahepatic cholestasis in pregnancy

From: Oral herbal medicine for women with intrahepatic cholestasis in pregnancy: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Herbal medicine compared to conventional medicine for women with intrahepatic cholestasis in pregnancy
Patient or population: Women with intrahepatic cholestasis in pregnancy
Settings: Outpatient department/ Inpatient department
Intervention: Herbal medicine
Comparison: Conventional medicine
Outcomes Illustrative comparative risksa (95% CI) Relative effect
(95% CI)
No of Participants
(studies)
Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)
Comments
Assumed risk Corresponding risk
  Conventional medicine herbal medicine     
Ribalta pruritus score
Scale from: 0 to 4.
  The mean Ribalta pruritus score in the intervention groups was 0.68 lower (0.88 to 0.47 lower)   120
(2 studies)

very lowb,c
 
The serum TBA value   The mean the serum TBA value in the intervention groups was 1.67 lower (7.69 lower to 4.35 higher)   180
(2 studies)

very lowb,c,d
 
The number of fetal distress 192 per 1000 148 per 1000
(83 to 267)
RR 0.77
(0.43 to 1.39)
218
(3 studies)

lowb
 
The number of asphyxia neonatorum 33 per 1000 33 per 1000
(2 to 559)
RR 1
(0.06 to 16.76)
60
(1 study)

lowc,e
 
  1. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
  2. High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect
  3. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate
  4. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate
  5. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate
  6. CI Confidence interval, RR Risk ratio
  7. aThe basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI)
  8. bThere were very serious limitations of methodological quality of included trials according to the risk of bias assessment
  9. cToo small sample size
  10. dThere were very serious statistical heterogeneity among included trials
  11. eThere were serious limitations of methodological quality of included trials according to the risk of bias assessment