Table 3.

Summary of findings table

Patient or population: patients with Sepsis or septic shock

Settings: Intensive care medicine

Intervention: IVIgGM

Comparison: Control

Outcomes	Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)		Relative effect(95% CI)	No of Participants(studies)	Quality of the evidence(GRADE)
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Control	IVIgGM
New OutcomeFollow-up: 12-70 days	Study population		RR 0.60 (0.52 to 0.69)	1530 (19 studies)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ low 1
	429 per 1000	258 per 1000 (223 to 296)
	Moderate
	412 per 1000	247 per 1000 (214 to 284)
Length of mechanical ventilation	The mean length of mechanical ventilation in the intervention groups was 3.16 lower (5.71 lower to 0.61 lower)			264 (4 studies)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ low 1
Length of stay on ICU	The mean length of stay on ICU in the intervention groups was 0.38 higher (3.55 lower to 2.80 higher)			530 (8 studies)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low 1

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. 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, RR risk ratio, ICU intensive care medicine

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