Frequency of adverse effects ‐ anorexia ( · people with epilepsy
Summary of findings: catgut implantation at acupoints plus… showed no clear difference in frequency of adverse effects ‐ anorexia ( compared with antiepileptic drugs alone (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Seizure freedom · participants with generalised epilepsy
Summary of findings: catgut implantation at acupoints may leads to higher seizure freedom ( compared with valproate (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency · participants with generalised epilepsy
Summary of findings: catgut implantation at acupoints showed no clear difference in 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency ( compared with valproate (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Post‐treatment quality of life (QOLIE‐31 score, which has a range of 0‐200, with higher score indicates better quality of life) ( · participants with generalised epilepsy
1 finding from 1 review
Frequency of adverse effects ‐ dizziness ( · participants with generalised epilepsy
Summary of findings: catgut implantation at acupoints showed no clear difference in frequency of adverse effects ‐ dizziness ( compared with valproate (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Frequency of adverse effects ‐ malaise ( · participants with generalised epilepsy
Summary of findings: catgut implantation at acupoints showed no clear difference in frequency of adverse effects ‐ malaise ( compared with valproate (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Nausea · participants with generalised epilepsy
Summary of findings: catgut implantation at acupoints showed no clear difference in frequency of adverse effects ‐ nausea ( compared with valproate (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Frequency of adverse effects ‐ anorexia ( · participants with generalised epilepsy
Summary of findings: catgut implantation at acupoints may leads to lower frequency of adverse effects ‐ anorexia ( compared with valproate (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Pain up to 1 month after treatment VAS2 · patients with fibromyalgia
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Physical function MOS SF‐363 · patients with fibromyalgia
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Global well‐being: rated by participants · patients with fibromyalgia
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Sleep · patients with fibromyalgia
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Fatigue · patients with fibromyalgia
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Stiffness · patients with fibromyalgia
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Adverse events · patients with fibromyalgia
The intervention showed no clear difference in adverse events (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Pain (short term) WOMAC scale from 0 to 20 points (higher is worse pain). · Patients with peripheral joint osteoarthritis
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Function (long term) WOMAC scale from 0 to 68 points (higher is worse function). · Patients with knee osteoarthritis
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Adverse events · Patients with knee osteoarthritis
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Intervention not reported
Function (short term) WOMAC scale from 0 to 68 points (higher is worse function). · Patients with peripheral joint osteoarthritis
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Pain (long term) WOMAC scale from 0 to 20 points (higher is worse pain). · Patients with peripheral joint osteoarthritis
1 finding from 1 review