Table 2 The grade evidence quality of acupuncture or migraine
From: Effects of acupuncture on mental health of migraine patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Quality assessment | No of patients | Effect | Quality | Importance | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No of studies | Design | Risk of bias | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Other considerations | Acupuncture | Control | Relative (95% CI) | Absolute | ||
SAS (Better indicated by lower values) | ||||||||||||
 5 | randomised trials | no serious risk of bias | Seriousa | Seriousb | very seriousc | none | 193 | 186 | - | MD 5.64 lower (10.89 to 0.39 lower) | ÅOOO VERY LOW | IMPORTANT |
SAS—A vs SA (Better indicated by lower values) | ||||||||||||
 3 | no methodology chosen |  |  |  |  | none | 118 | 111 | - | MD 1.13 lower (3.5 lower to 1.24 higher) |  |  |
SAS—A vs WM (Better indicated by lower values) | ||||||||||||
 2 | no methodology chosen |  |  |  |  | none | 75 | 75 | - | MD 10.58 lower (13.69 to 7.47 lower) |  |  |
VAS (Better indicated by lower values) | ||||||||||||
 9 | randomised trials | no serious risk of bias | Seriousa | Seriousb | very seriousc | none | 479 | 471 | - | MD 1.06 lower (1.72 to 0.39 lower) | ÅOOO VERY LOW |  |
VAS—A vs SA (Better indicated by lower values) | ||||||||||||
 6 | no methodology chosen |  |  |  |  | none | 367 | 359 | - | MD 0.89 lower (1.76 to 0.02 lower) |  |  |
VAS—A vs WM (Better indicated by lower values) | ||||||||||||
 3 | no methodology chosen |  |  |  |  | none | 112 | 112 | - | MD 1.39 lower (2.29 to 0.49 lower) |  |  |
SDS (Better indicated by lower values) | ||||||||||||
 5 | randomised trials | no serious risk of bias | Seriousa | Seriousb | very seriousc | none | 99 | 95 | - | MD 4.65 lower (9.25 to 0.045 lower) | ÅOOO VERY LOW |  |
SDS—A vs SA (Better indicated by lower values) | ||||||||||||
 3 | no methodology chosen |  |  |  |  | none | 24 | 20 | - | MD 0.72 lower (3.76 lower to2.23 higher) |  |  |
SDS—A vs WM (Better indicated by lower values) | ||||||||||||
 2 | no methodology chosen |  |  |  |  | none | 75 | 75 | - | MD 9.5 lower (15.6 to3.4 lower) |  |  |
SF-MH (Better indicated by lower values) | ||||||||||||
 6 | randomised trials | no serious risk of bias | Seriousa | Seriousb | very seriousc | none | 505 | 532 | - | MD 3.87 higher (1.49 to 6.25 higher) | ÅOOO VERY LOW |  |
SF-MH—A vs SA (Better indicated by lower values) | ||||||||||||
 2 | no methodology chosen |  |  |  |  | none | 360 | 387 | - | MD 1.42higher (1.69 lower to 4.54 higher) |  |  |
SF-MH—A vs WM (Better indicated by lower values) | ||||||||||||
 4 | no methodology chosen |  |  |  |  | none | 145 | 145 | - | MD5.3 higher (1.82 to 8.78 higher) |  |  |
MSQ (Better indicated by lower values) | ||||||||||||
 3 | randomised trials | no serious risk of bias | Seriousa | Seriousb | serious | none | 262 | 258 | - | MD 0.57 higher (0.21 to 0.93 higher) | ÅOOO VERY LOW | IMPORTANT |