Summary of findings for the main comparison. Colloids versus crystalloids for improving functional outcome in people with acute stroke.
| Colloids versus crystalloids for improving functional outcome in people with acute stroke | ||||||
| Patient or population: people with acute ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke Settings: all trials were undertaken in a hospital setting in various parts of the world including USA, UK, Europe, Israel, Australia, and Hong Kong Intervention: colloids versus crystalloids | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Control | Colloids versus crystalloids | |||||
| Death or dependence Follow‐up: 3‐12 months | Study population | OR 0.97 (0.79 to 1.21) | 1420 (5 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 | ||
| 589 per 1000 | 581 per 1000 (531 to 634) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 639 per 1000 | 632 per 1000 (583 to 682) | |||||
| Death Follow‐up: 3‐12 months | Study population | OR 1.02 (0.82 to 1.27) | 2351 (12 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate3 | ||
| 202 per 1000 | 206 per 1000 (172 to 244) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 219 per 1000 | 222 per 1000 (187 to 263) | |||||
| Pneumonia | Study population | OR 0.58 (0.17 to 2.01) | 416 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate4 | ||
| 33 per 1000 | 20 per 1000 (6 to 65) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 33 per 1000 | 19 per 1000 (6 to 64) | |||||
| Cerebral oedema Follow‐up: median 3 months | Study population | OR 0.20 (0.02 to 1.74) | 200 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low5 | ||
| 49 per 1000 | 10 per 1000 (1 to 82) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 49 per 1000 | 10 per 1000 (1 to 82) | |||||
| Pulmonary oedema Follow‐up: median 90 days | Study population | OR 2.34 (1.28 to 4.29) | 730 (3 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low6 | ||
| 45 per 1000 | 99 per 1000 (57 to 168) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 49 per 1000 | 108 per 1000 (62 to 181) | |||||
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in the 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; OR: Odds 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 Downgraded due to study limitations and inconsistency with substantial heterogeneity 2 Substantial heterogeneity 3 The confidence interval did not exclude important benefits or harms 4 Based on two studies, study limitations acknowledged 5 Data from one study only, no comparisons 6 Based on three studies, OR above 2.0