Table 2.
Summary of findings. Certainty of evidence.
| Outcomesa | Studiesb | Certainty assessment |
№ of patients |
Absolute effect (95% CI) | Certainty | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Risk of biasc | Inconsistencyh | Indirectness | Imprecisioni | Other considerations | CO 1 | CO 2 | ||||
| RT-BFR vs CG | ||||||||||
| SBP (mm Hg) | 3 RCTs | seriousc | not serioush | not serious | not serious | none | 27 | 32 | SMD -0.58 (−1.29 to −0.13) | ⊕⊕◯◯ LOW |
| DBP (mm Hg) | 3 RCTs | seriousc | not serious | not serious | not serious | none | 27 | 32 | SMD -0.38 (−0.91 to 0.14) | ⊕⊕⊕◯ MODERATE |
| MAP (mm Hg) | 2 RCTs | Seriousd | not serioush | not serious | not serious | none | 18 | 22 | SMD -0.76 (−1.67 to 0.14) | ⊕⊕◯◯ LOW |
| TRT vs CG | ||||||||||
| SBP (mm Hg) | 3 RCTs | Seriouse | not serious | not serious | not serious | none | 29 | 37 | SMD0.06 (−0.43 to 0.56) | ⊕⊕⊕◯ MODERATE |
| DBP (mm Hg) | 3 RCTs | seriouse | not serious | not serious | not serious | none | 29 | 37 | SMD 0.02 (−0.47 to 0.51) | ⊕⊕⊕◯ MODERATE |
| MAP (mm Hg) | 3 RCTs | seriouse | not serious | not serious | not serious | none | 29 | 37 | SMD -0.36 (−0.47 to 0.52) | ⊕⊕⊕◯ MODERATE |
| RT-BFR vs CG | ||||||||||
| SBP (mm Hg) | 9 RCTs | Seriousf | not serious | not serious | not serious | none | 80 | 78 | SMD -0.14 (−0.48 to 0.20) | ⊕⊕⊕◯ MODERATE |
| DBP (mm Hg) | 9 RCTs | seriousf | not serious | not serious | not serious | none | 80 | 78 | SMD -0.34 (−0.66 to −0.02) | ⊕⊕⊕◯ MODERATE |
| MAP (mm Hg) | 7 RCTs | serious3d | not serious | not serious | not serious | none | 61 | 61 | SMD -0.39 (−0.79 to 0.01) | ⊕⊕⊕◯ MODERATE |
Abbreviations: SBP = systolic blood pressure; DBP = diastolic blood pressure; MAP = mean arterial pressure; CI = confidence interval; RCT = randomized controlled trial; CO1 = comparator 1; CO2 = comparator 2; SMD = standard mean difference.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence.
High certainty: The current evidence provides a very good indication of the likely effect, and the likelihood that the actual effect will be substantially different is low.
Moderate certainty: The current evidence provides a good indication of the likely effect, and the likelihood that the actual effect of the treatment will not be substantially different is moderate.
Low certainty: The current evidence provides some indication of the likely effect, but the likelihood that the actual effect will be substantially different is high.
Very low certainty: The current evidence does not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect, and the likelihood that the actual effect will be substantially different is very high.
Hemodynamics outcomes.
Number of studies included in the analyses. Some studies presented more than two groups.
Two studies in the overall risk of bias assessment for all RCT indicated “High risk of bias” and one study in the overall risk of bias assessment indicated as “some concerns” (Rob 2 tool).
One study in the overall risk of bias assessment for all RCT indicated “High risk of bias” and one study in the overall risk of bias assessment indicated as “some concerns” (Rob 2 tool).
One study in the overall risk of bias assessment for all RCT indicated “High risk of bias” and one study in the overall risk of bias assessment indicated as “some concerns” (Rob 2 tool).
One study in the overall risk of bias assessment for all RCT indicated “High risk of bias” and 8 studies in the overall risk of bias assessment indicated as “some concerns” (Rob 2 tool).
One study in the overall risk of bias assessment for all RCT indicated “High risk of bias” and 6 studies in the overall risk of bias assessment indicated as “some concerns” (Rob 2 tool).
Presences of moderate between-study heterogeneity (I2 ≥50%) observed in the meta-analysis.
All the studies presented adequate sample size according to power calculation for meta-analysis.