Skip to main content
. 2023 Apr 18;18:308. doi: 10.1186/s13018-023-03786-6

Table 2.

The quality of evidence

Outcomes Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) Relative effect (95% CI) No. of Participants (studies) Quality of the evidence (GRADE) Comments
Assumed risk Corresponding risk
NSAIDs Diacerein
WOMAC The mean WOMAC in the intervention groups was 0.09 standard deviations higher (0.1 lower to 0.28 higher) 1429 (8 studies) OO low1,2,3 SMD 0.09 (−0.1 to 0.28)
VAS The mean vas in the intervention groups was 0.19 standard deviations lower (0.65 lower to 0.27 higher) 1367 (8 studies) OO low1,2,3 SMD −0.19 (−0.65 to 0.27)
Global efficacy judgements by the patients Study population OR 1.97 (1.18 to 3.29) 766 (4 studies) OO low3,4,5
747 per 1000 853 per 1000 (777 to 907)
Moderate
792 per 1000 882 per 1000 (818 to 926)
Global efficacy judgements by the investigator Study population OR 2.18 (0.99 to 4.81) 766 (4 studies) OO low2,3,4
742 per 1000 862 per 1000 (740 to 932)
Moderate
783 per 1000 887 per 1000 (781 to 946)
Safety Study population OR 0.83 (0.57 to 1.21) 1222 (10 studies) OOO very low1,3,5
290 per 1000 253 per 1000 (189 to 331)
Moderate
184 per 1000 158 per 1000 (114 to 214)

CI Confidence interval; OR Odds ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence

High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect

Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate

Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate

Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate

1High risk of bias due to the lack of blinding

2High heterogeneity

3Wide CI

4Small sample size

5Moderate heterogeneity