Table 2 Discrepancies of effect sizes of high/unclear risk versus low risk in each risk of bias domain in Chinese- and non-Chinese-language acupuncture trials
Subgroup | No. reviews | No. RCTs (high and unclear risk vs. low risk) | No. sample size (high and unclear risk vs. low risk) | ROR* [95% CI] | p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Â | ||||
Chinese-language trial | 8 | 21 vs. 25 | 1844 vs. 2551 | 0.83 [0.44, 1.57] | 0.63 |
Non-Chinese-language trial | 3 | 19 vs. 11 | 2489 vs. 1084 | 1.00 [0.66, 1.50] | |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Â | ||||
Chinese-language trial | 3 | 16 vs. 3 | 1272 vs. 430 | 0.43 [0.21, 0.87]* | 0.37 |
Non-Chinese-language trial | 4 | 27 vs. 7 | 3211 vs. 631 | 0.65 [0.38, 1.09] | |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) | Â | ||||
Chinese-language trial | 0 | NA | NA | NA | NA |
Non-Chinese-language trial | 3 | 13 vs. 4 | 2042 vs. 426 | 0.41 [0.23, 0.74]* | |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) | Â | ||||
Chinese-language trial | 2 | 6 vs. 2 | 444 vs. 87 | 0.51 [0.15, 1.78] | 0.50 |
Non-Chinese-language trial | 4 | 8 vs. 13 | 601 vs. 2305 | 0.84 [0.40, 1.74] | |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) | Â | ||||
Chinese-language trial | 5 | 13 vs. 9 | 1508 vs. 678 | 1.78 [0.73, 4.34] | 0.52 |
Non-Chinese-language trial | 5 | 18 vs. 21 | 2955 vs. 2310 | 1.24 [0.67, 2.29] | |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Â | ||||
Chinese-language trial | 1 | 3 vs. 1 | 262 vs. 294 | 1.00 [0.29, 3.41] | 0.83 |
Non-Chinese-language trial | 3 | 7 vs. 8 | 460 vs. 1497 | 1.18 [0.49, 2.83] | |