Summary of findings for the main comparison. Pancreatic resection versus palliative treatment for locally advanced pancreatic cancer.
| Pancreatic resection versus palliative treatment for locally advanced pancreatic cancer | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer Settings: tertiary care Intervention: pancreatic resection Comparison: palliative treatment | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Palliative treatment | Pancreatic resection | |||||
| Overall mortality Follow‐up: mean 3 years | 990 per 1000 | 826 per 1000 (684 to 931) | HR 0.38 (0.25 to 0.58) | 98 (2 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2 | |
| Length of hospital stay | The mean length of hospital stay in the control groups was 124 days | The mean length of hospital stay in the intervention groups was 23 lower (59.05 lower to 13.05 higher) | 42 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 | ||
| Costs | The mean costs in the control groups was 28.2 thousand US dollars | The mean costs in the intervention groups was 10.7 lower (14.11 to 7.29 lower) | 42 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2 | ||
| *All patients in the control group were dead within 2 years. A mortality proportion of 99% was used for illustration purposes. 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. | ||||||
1 The trial(s) was/were at high risk of bias and were downgraded 2 points. 2 There were few trials to assess publication bias and were downgraded 1 point. 3 Overlaps 0 and minimal clinically important difference. There were fewer than 400 patients in both groups. The quality of the evidence was downgraded 2 points.