Summary of findings for the main comparison. Antithrombotic treatment compared to no antithrombotic treatment for intracerebral haemorrhage.
| Short‐term antithrombotic treatment | ||||||
| Patient or population: people with intracerebral haemorrhage Setting: any Intervention: antithrombotic treatment (parenteral anticoagulation) Comparison: no antithrombotic treatment | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with no antithrombotic treatment | Risk with Antithrombotic treatment | |||||
| Composite vascular endpoint | Study population | not estimable | (0 studies) | ‐ | We were unable to calculate the composite endpoint because no included study reported all component endpoints. | |
| Death | Study population | RR 1.25 (0.38 to 4.07) | 46 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW 1 2 | ‐ | |
| 174 per 1,000 | 217 per 1,000 (66 to 708) | |||||
| Growth of ICH | Study population | RR 1.64 (0.51 to 5.29) | 121 (2 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW 1 2 | ‐ | |
| 51 per 1,000 | 83 per 1,000 (26 to 269) | |||||
| ICH | Study population | not estimable | 75 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW 1 2 | ‐ | |
| 0 per 1,000 | 0 per 1,000 (0 to 0) | |||||
| Major extracerebral haemorrhage | Study population | not estimable | 75 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW 1 2 | ‐ | |
| 0 per 1,000 | 0 per 1,000 (0 to 0) | |||||
| Deep vein thrombosis | Study population | RR 0.99 (0.46 to 1.96) | 121 (2 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW 1 2 | ‐ | |
| 186 per 1,000 | 185 per 1,000 (86 to 365) | |||||
| Other major ischaemic events | Study population | RR 0.54 (0.23 to 1.28) | 121 (2 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW 1 2 | ‐ | |
| 186 per 1,000 | 101 per 1,000 (43 to 239) | |||||
| *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; RR: Risk ratio; OR: Odds ratio; | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the 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 | ||||||
1This included RCT/s has serious risk of bias due to it not describing random sequence generation or allocation concealment, as well as lack of blinding.
2The optimal information size (OIS) criterion is not met. The sample size of this study is probably lower than the minimum number of participants required for a trial adequately powered to identify a statistically significant difference for this outcome.