Summary of findings for the main comparison
Acupuncture compared to sham procedure for treating chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome
| Acupuncture compared to sham procedure for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome | |||||
| Patient or population: participants with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome Setting: outpatient, Korea, Malaysia, US and Turkey Intervention: acupuncture Comparison: sham procedure placing needles in different points from those used in acupuncture | |||||
| Outcomes | № of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | |
| Risk with sham procedure | Risk difference with Acupuncture | ||||
| Prostatitis Symptoms assessed with: NIH‐CPSI score Scale from: 0 to 43 follow up: 6‐8 weeks Benefit is indicated by lower scores | 204 (3 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate1 | ‐ | The mean prostatitis Symptoms ranged from 17.08 to 22 | MD 5.79 lower (7.32 lower to 4.26 lower) |
| Prostatitis Symptoms assessed with: NIH‐CPSI score (response) follow up: 6 weeks | 113 (2 RCTs) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very low1 2 3 | RR 2.49 (0.77 to 8.02) | Study population | |
| 404 per 1.000 | 596 more per 1000 (93 fewer to 596 more) | ||||
| Adverse events follow up: 6‐8 weeks | 204 (3 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low1 3 | RR 1.33 (0.51 to 3.46) | Study population | |
| 58 per 1.000 | 19 more per 1000 (29 fewer to 143 more) | ||||
| Sexual dysfunction assessed with: International Index of Erectile Function Scale from: 5 to 25 follow up: 6 weeks Benefit is indicated by higher scores | 89 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low1 4 | ‐ | The mean sexual dysfunction was 23 | MD 0.5 lower (3.46 lower to 2.46 higher) |
| Quality of life ‐ not reported | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| Depression and anxiety ‐ not reported | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; OR: Odds ratio; | |||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect | |||||
1 Downgraded 1 level due to unclear risk of bias: insufficient information about allocation concealment
2 Downgraded 1 level due to inconsistency: statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 76%).
3 Downgraded 1 level due to imprecision issues: wide confidence interval due to small sample size and few events.
4 Downgraded 1 level for imprecision issues: wide confidence interval includes both appreciable benefit and harm.