Summary of findings for the main comparison. Dopamine agonists for hepatic encephalopathy.
| Dopamine agonists versus placebo or no intervention for hepatic encephalopathy | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with hepatic encephalopathy. Settings: hospitalised patients. Intervention: dopamine agonists versus placebo or no intervention. | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Control (placebo or no intervention) | Dopamine agonists | |||||
| Mortality Follow‐up: mean one month | Study population | OR 1.11 (0.35 to 3.54) | 144 (five studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2,3 | ||
| 535 per 1000 | 561 per 1000 (287 to 803) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 395 per 1000 | 420 per 1000 (186 to 698) | |||||
| Hepatic encephalopathy Follow‐up: mean one month | Study population | OR 2.99 (0.09 to 100.55) | 80 (two studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2,3 | ||
| 350 per 1000 | 617 per 1000 (46 to 982) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 184 per 1000 | 403 per 1000 (20 to 958) | |||||
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. 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. | ||||||
1The randomisation methods were classed as adequate in two trials, and three trials were double‐blind. 2The sample size was small, and the statistical power of included trials was weak. 3Because of the small number of trials, tests for publication bias were of limited value.