Summary of findings for the main comparison. Early versus late ureteric stent removal after kidney transplantation.
| Early versus late ureteric stent removal after kidney transplantation | |||||
| Patient or population: kidney transplant recipients Intervention: early ureteric stent removal Comparison: late ureteric stent removal | |||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No. of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | |
| Risk with late removal | Risk with early removal | ||||
| Major urological complications: all stents follow‐up range: 3 to 12 months | Study population | RR 1.87 (0.61 to 5.71) | 1127 (5) | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ LOW 1 | |
| 12 per 1,000 | 23 per 1,000 (7 to 69) | ||||
| Major urological complications: bladder indwelling stents follow‐up range: 3 months to 12 months | Study population | RR 1.67 (0.52 to 5.36) | 539 (3) | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ LOW 1 | |
| 15 per 1,000 | 24 per 1,000 (8 to 79) | ||||
| Major urological complications: per‐urethral stents follow‐up range: 3 months to 12 months | Study population | RR 1.51 (0.03 to 74.45) | 588 (2) | ⊕⊕⊕⊕ LOW 1 | |
| 10 per 1,000 | 15 per 1,000 (0 to 732) | ||||
| Urinary tract infection: all stents | Study population | RR 0.49 (0.30 to 0.81) | 1126 (5) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATE 1 2 | |
| 185 per 1,000 | 91 per 1,000 (56 to 150) | ||||
| Urinary tract infection: bladder indwelling stents | Study population | RR 0.45 (0.29 to 0.70) | 539 (3) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATE 1 2 | |
| 209 per 1,000 | 94 per 1,000 (61 to 146) | ||||
| Urinary tract infection: per‐urethral stents | Study population | RR 0.60 (0.17 to 2.03) | 587 (2) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW 1 2 | |
| 164 per 1,000 | 98 per 1,000 (28 to 333) | ||||
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% CI) 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 | |||||
| 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 | |||||
1 All studies were unblinded, however, this was unavoidable given the nature of the intervention. The majority of studies provided minimal information on processes of randomisation and allocation
2 Inconsistent definition and variable reporting of urinary tract infection across included studies