Meta-analysis of 29 studies on the effect of different methods of acupuncture Therapy for depression compared to usual care control groups by pooling data from RCTs.
A dataframe with 29 rows and 11 columns. Each row represents study results, the columns are:
Author and year.
changes in severity between intervention and control groups calculated using Hedges´g statistic
Standard Error of Hedges´g
treatment administered
control group treatment
origin country of the study
total amount of patients per study
number of treatments received per study
fixed: same acupuncture points used at each session; semi-fixed: some points pre-defined, some selected on the basis of the diagnosis/symptoms (location and amount); individualised: location and amount of points selected on basis of the diagnosis/symptoms
amount of acupuncture points for fixed-points-studies
NICMAN scale Points to evaluate the Quality of the administered acupuncture
Risk of selection bias (Random sequence generation) low risk of bias: high, high risk: low, unclear: unclear
Risk of selection bias (allocation concealment) low risk of bias: high, high risk: low, unclear: unclear
Risk of performance bias (blinding of participants and personnel) low risk of bias: high, high risk: low, unclear: unclear
Risk of detection bias (blinding oft outcome assessment) low risk of bias: high, high risk: low, unclear: unclear
Risk of attrition bias (incomplete outcome data) low risk of bias: high, high risk: low, unclear: unclear
Risk of reporting bias (selective reporting) low risk of bias: high, high risk: low, unclear: unclear
Risk of other biases; low risk of bias: high, high risk: low, unclear: unclear