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

Table 4 Summary of finding table of combination of herbal medicine and conventional medicine compared to conventional medicine for women with intrahepatic cholestasis in pregnancy

Combination of herbal medicine and conventional medicine compared to conventional medicine for women with intrahepatic cholestasis in pregnancy
Patient or population: Women with intrahepatic cholestasis in pregnancy Settings: Intervention: Combination of herbal medicine and conventional medicine Comparison: Conventional medicine
Outcomes	Illustrative comparative risks^a (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	No of Participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
Outcomes	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk	Relative effect (95% CI)	No of Participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Conventional medicine	Combination of herbal medicine and conventional medicine
Ribalta pruritus score Scale from: 0 to 4.		The mean Ribalta pruritus score in the intervention groups was 0.83 lower (0.98 to 0.67 lower)		1327 (15 studies)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low^b,c
The serum TBA value		The mean the serum TBA value in the intervention groups was 7.62 lower (12.97 to 2.27 lower)		652 (23 studies)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low^b,c
The number of fetal distress	207 per 1000	85 per 1000 (66 to 106)	RR 0.41 (0.32 to 0.51)	1915 (24 studies)	⊕ ⊕ ⊝⊝ low^b
The number of asphyxia neonatorum	155 per 1000	54 per 1000 (39 to 76)	RR 0.35 (0.25 to 0.49)	1492 (18 studies)	⊕ ⊕ ⊝⊝ low^b

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate
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
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate
CI Confidence interval, RR Risk ratio
^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)
^bThere were very serious limitations of methodological quality of included trials according to the risk of bias assessment
^cThere were very serious statistical heterogeneity among included trials

ISSN: 2662-7671