Table 4. Summary of findings.
| Adding caudal magnesium compared to control for patients with caudal anesthesia | ||||||
|
Patients or population: patients with caudal anesthesia Intervention: adding caudal magnesium Comparison: control | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) |
Number of participants (studies) |
Quality of evidence (GRADE) |
Comments | |
| Risk in control groups | Risk in caudal magnesium groups | |||||
| Patients requiring rescue analgesia | 415 per 1,000 |
187 per 1,000 (100–357) |
RR 0.45 (0.24–0.86) |
247 (4 RCTs) |
⨁◯◯◯ Very lowa,b,c,d |
|
*The risk in the intervention group (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; RCTs, randomized controlled trials; RR, risk ratio.
aAll trials were at high risk of bias.
bI2 was >50%.
cthe 95% CI obtained from the Trial Sequential Analysis was wide.
donly four trials were included.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence: high quality (we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of effect; moderate quality (we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different); low quality (our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect); very low quality (we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect).