Table 7.
GRADE evidence profile table for restoration survival: gold versus indirect resin composite
| Quality assessment | No of restorations | Effect | Quality | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No of studies | Design | Risk of bias | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Other considerations | Gold | Indirect resin composite | Absolute (95% Cl) | |
| 2 | Retro- and prospective studies | Serious2 | No serious inconsistency | No serious indirectness | No serious imprecision | None | 3/78 (3.8%) | 21/96 (21.9%) | 18 fewer per 100 (from 9 to 27 fewer)3 |
Very low |
OOORange of follow-up: 24–84 months
1Starting from the low-quality level of evidence
2Robins-I shows a serious risk of bias
3Significant effect (p = 0.00002)