Summary of findings 2. Interventions for necrotising pancreatitis: other primary outcomes.
| Interventions for necrotising pancreatitis: other primary outcomes | |||||
| Patient or population: people with necrotising pancreatitis Settings: secondary or tertiary care Intervention: interventions 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 | ||||
| Serious adverse events (proportion) | |||||
| Minimally invasive step‐up approach vs. open necrosectomy | 714 per 1000 | 487 per 1000 (259 to 716) | OR 0.38 (0.14 to 1.01) | 72 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 |
| Serious adverse events (number) | |||||
| Peritoneal lavage vs. open necrosectomy | 1662 per 1000 | 2123 per 1000 (1527 to 2950) | Rate ratio 1.28 (0.92 to 1.78) | 56 (2 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 |
| Minimally invasive step‐up approach vs. open necrosectomy | 1662 per 1000 | 689 per 1000 (422 to 1125) | Rate ratio 0.41 (0.25 to 0.68) | 88 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 |
| Minimally invasive step‐up approach: video‐assisted vs. endoscopic | 535 per 1000 | 6716 per 1000 (384 to 117455) | Rate ratio 12.55 (0.72 to 219.54) | 22 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 |
| Organ failure | |||||
| Minimally invasive step‐up approach vs. open necrosectomy | 400 per 1000 | 118 per 1000 (45 to 286) | OR 0.20 (0.07 to 0.60) | 88 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 |
| Minimally invasive step‐up approach: video‐assisted vs. endoscopic | 116 per 1000 | 669 per 1000 (87 to 977) | OR 15.4 (0.73 to 322.88) | 22 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 |
| None of the trials that included participants with sterile necrosis reported the proportion of people with infected pancreatic necrosis None of the trials reported the health‐related quality of life at any time frame | |||||
| *The basis for the assumed risk is the control group proportions or rates across studies except for the comparison minimally invasive step‐up approach: video‐assisted vs. endoscopic; we used the mean rate of serious adverse events in the minimally invasive step‐up approach from other trials as the control event rate since there were no serious adverse events in the control group. 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.