Table 5. GRADE evidence profile.
| Quality assessment |
No of patients |
Effect |
Quality | Importance | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No of studies | Design | Risk of bias | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Other considerations | R1 resection | R0 resection | Relative (95% CI) | Absolute | ||
| Recurrence rate (follow-up 8.8–24 years) | ||||||||||||
| 9 | observational studies | no serious risk of bias | serious1 | no serious indirectness | no serious imprecision | increased effect for RR ~12 | 75/220 (34.1%) | 485/1475 (32.9%) | OR 1.203 (0.632 to 2.287) | 42 more per 1000 (from 92 fewer to 200 more) | ⊕⊕ΟΟ Low | Critical |
| Disease-free survival (follow-up 6.1–24 years) | ||||||||||||
| 12 | observational studies | no serious risk of bias | no serious inconsistency | no serious indirectness | no serious imprecision | increased effect for RR ~12 | 232 | 1673 | HR 1.596 (1.128 to 2.258) | — | ⊕⊕Ο Moderate | Critical |
| Overall survival (follow-up 6.1–17 years) | ||||||||||||
| 8 | observational studies | no serious risk of bias | serious1 | no serious indirectness | no serious imprecision | increased effect for RR ~12 | 67 | 486 | HR 1.430 (0.068 to 3.363) | — | ⊕⊕ΟΟ Low | Important |
1The statistical test for heterogeneity showed a low P value.
2Numerous specimen processing variables when assessing positive margins might influence the rate of positive margins.