Summary of findings 3. Externally supported graft compared to unsupported graft for above‐knee femoro‐popliteal bypass surgery.
| Externally supported graft compared to unsupported graft for above‐knee femoro‐popliteal bypass surgery | ||||||
| Patient or population: people with peripheral vascular disease requiring above‐knee femoro‐popliteal bypass surgery Setting: hospital Intervention: externally supported graft Comparison: unsupported graft | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of limbs (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with unsupported graft | Risk with externally supported graft | |||||
| Primary patency (24 months) |
Study population | OR 2.08 (1.29 to 3.35) | 270 (2 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW 1 2 | 180 fewer unsupported prosthetic grafts per 1000 (61 to 293 grafts per 1000) lose primary patency by 24 months compared to externally supported prosthetic grafts | |
| 376 per 1000 | 556 per 1000 (437 to 669) | |||||
| Primary patency (60 months) |
‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | No studies comparing supported and unsupported Dacron reported on primary patency at 60 months |
| Secondary patency (24 months) |
Study population | OR 2.25 (1.24 to 4.07) | 236 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW 1 2 | 143 fewer unsupported Dacron grafts per 1000 (32 to 281 grafts per 1,000) lose secondary patency by 24 months compared to externally supported Dacron grafts | |
| 165 per 1000 | 308 per 1000 (197 to 446) | |||||
| Limb salvage | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | No studies of these graft types reported on this outcome |
| *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; 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 | ||||||
1 Downgraded because of serious risk of bias due to lack of blinding and poor randomisation techniques 2 Downgraded due to imprecision because of the low number of participants and events