Summary of findings for the main comparison. Interventions for necrotising pancreatitis: mortality.
| Interventions for necrotising pancreatitis: mortality | |||||
| Patient or population: people with necrotising pancreatitis Settings: secondary or tertiary care Intervention: various interventions vs. control for necrotising pancreatitis | |||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | ||||
| Control | Intervention | ||||
| Short‐term mortality | |||||
| Peritoneal lavage vs. open necrosectomy | 329 per 1000 | 482 per 1000 (264 to 708) | OR 1.9 (0.73 to 4.94) | 80 (3 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 |
| Minimally invasive step‐up approach vs. open necrosectomy | 329 per 1000 | 242 per 1000 (136 to 397) | OR 0.65 (0.32 to 1.34) | 160 (2 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3,4 |
| Delayed open necrosectomy vs. early open necrosectomy | 329 per 1000 | 124 per 1000 (29 to 404) | OR 0.29 (0.06 to 1.38) | 36 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 |
| Minimally invasive step‐up approach: video‐assisted vs. endoscopic | 100 per 1000 | 333 per 1000 (44 to 845) | OR 4.5 (0.41 to 49.08) | 22 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 |
| Minimally invasive step‐up approach: planned surgery vs. continued percutaneous drainage | 225 per 1000 | 859 per 1000 (157 to 995) | OR 21 (0.64 to 689.99) | 8 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 |
| None of the trials reported long‐term mortality | |||||
| *The basis for the assumed risk was the mean control group proportion across all studies. The corresponding risk (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; 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. | |||||
1 The trial(s) was (were) at unclear or high risk of bias. 2 Sample size was small. 3 Confidence intervals overlapped clinically significant effect and no effect. 4 There was moderate heterogeneity as indicated by the I2 statistic.