Skip to main content

Table 5 Relative risks (RRs) and heterogeneity tests for sensitivity analyses

From: Efficacy and safety of Si-Jun-Zi-Tang-based therapies for functional (non-ulcer) dyspepsia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Excluded study Pooled RR (95% CI) Pheterogeneity; I2
Hu (2001) [32] 1.22 (1.13, 1.32) 0.03; 51%
Cao (2008) [33] 1.22 (1.13, 1.32) 0.03; 51%
Li (2008) [34] 1.23 (1.13, 1.33) 0.02; 52%
Deng and Su (2010)a [31] 1.23 (1.13, 1.34) 0.02; 52%
Deng and Su (2010)b [31] 1.24 (1.14, 1.35) 0.02; 52%
Mu (2012) [35] 1.21 (1.13, 1.31) 0.04; 48%
Zhang (2013) [36] 1.24 (1.17, 1.30) 0.38; 7%
Lv (2014) [37] 1.21 (1.13, 1.31) 0.04; 48%
Zhang (2014) [38] 1.19 (1.13, 1.27) 0.19; 27%
Lan and Yuan (2016) [39] 1.22 (1.13, 1.32) 0.02; 51%
Liu et al. (2016) [40] 1.23 (1.13, 1.33) 0.02; 52%
Li (2016) [41] 1.23 (1.14, 1.33) 0.02; 52%
  1. RR relative risk, CI confidence interval
  2. a high dosage; b low dosage
Back to article page

BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies

ISSN: 2662-7671

Contact us

\