for the main comparison.
| Altered fractionation compared with conventional radiotherapy for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer | ||||||
|
Patient or population: people with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer Settings: hospital Intervention: altered fractionation Comparison: conventional | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Conventional | Altered fractionation | |||||
| Mortality (follow‐up: 5 years) |
Low risk population | HR 0.86 (0.76 to 0.98) | [3751] (13) | +OOO very low2,3,4 | Analysis conducted on all included studies | |
| 200 per 10001 | 175 per 1000 (156 to 196) | |||||
| Medium risk population | ||||||
| 500 per 1000 | 449 per 1000 (410 to 493) | |||||
| High risk population | ||||||
| 700 per 10001 | 645 per 1000 (599 to 693) | |||||
| Mortality (follow‐up: 5 years) |
Low risk population | HR 0.93 (0.80 to 1.07) | [1511] (5) | +++O moderate2 | Analysis conducted for studies at low risk of bias | |
| 200 per 10001 | 187 per 1000 (163 to 212) |
|||||
| Medium risk population | ||||||
| 500 per 1000 | 475 per 1000 (426 to 524) |
|||||
| High risk population | ||||||
| 700 per 10001 | 674 per 1000 (618 to 724) |
|||||
| *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; HR: hazard 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. | ||||||
1Based on data presented by McGurk 2005
2Studies included patients with other head and neck cancers
3Heterogeneity due to one study
4Assessed as unclear regarding allocation concealment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting and/or other biases for 8 included trials