Table 3.
Strength of Evidence for Trials Comparing Intervention With Caregiver Component to Usual Care or Wait List Control.
| Outcome | No. of studies (na) | Risk of biasb | Directnessc | Precisiond | Consistencye | Evidence rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical functioning | 8 (1,149) | High | Direct | Imprecise | Inconsistent | Low |
| Cognitive functioning | 6 (489) | Moderate | Direct | Imprecise | Inconsistent | Low |
| Quality of life | 5 (445) | Moderate | Direct | Imprecise | Inconsistent | Low |
| Symptom control/management | 11 (1,815) | Moderate | Direct | Imprecise | Inconsistent | Low |
| Depression/anxiety | 6 (548) | Moderate | Direct | Imprecise | Inconsistent | Low |
| Utilization | 6 (1,044) | Moderate | Direct | Imprecise | Consistent | Low |
Source. Adapted from evidence report (Griffin et al, 2013).
Number randomized.
Internal validity. Study design and the quality of individual studies included in the review. Study design limitations may bias the estimates of treatment effect (such as lack of allocation concealment or lack of blinding).
Interventions are directly related to health outcomes of interest.
The degree of certainty surrounding an estimate of effect for each outcome of interest. Uncertainty of effect does not allow for a clinically useful conclusion, and is unable to rule out an important benefit or harm.
The effect sizes from the included studies are similar and have the same direction of effect (positive or negative).