TABLE 4.
GRADE rating of the quality of evidence.
| Certainty assessment | No of participants | Effect | Certainty | Importance | ||||||||
| No of studies | Study design | Risk of bias | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Other considerations | Livestock interventions | Control | Relative (95% CI) | Absolute (95% CI) | ||
| ASFs consumption (follow-up: mean 12 months) | ||||||||||||
| 4 | Randomized trials | Not serious | Seriousa | Not serious | Seriousb | Not serious | 580/1,050 (55.2%) | 165/1,010 (16.3%) | OR 5.39 (4.43 to 6.56) | 349 more per 1,000 (from 300 more to 398 more) | ⊕⊕○○ low |
Important |
| Minimum dietary diversity (MDD) (follow-up: mean 12 months) | ||||||||||||
| 3 | Randomized trials | Not serious | Seriousc | Not serious | Seriousb | Not serious | 536/760 (70.5%) | 396/705 (56.2%) | OR 1.89 (1.51 to 2.37) | 146 more per 1,000 (from 98 more to 191 more) | ⊕⊕○○ low |
Important |
CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio. aHigh levels of heterogeneity of the study’s results. bSmall sample sizes and wide confidence intervals. cModerate level of heterogeneity in the study’s results. The bold values indicate to the corresponding absolute effect estimates. ⊕⊕○○Means low level of certainty.