Summary of findings 4.
Needle aspiration versus no intervention for BCG vaccine adverse reactions
| Needle aspiration versus no intervention for BCG vaccine adverse reactions | ||||||
| Patient or population: infants with BCG vaccine adverse reactions1 Settings: ambulatory setting Intervention: needle aspiration Comparison: no intervention | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| No intervention | Needle aspiration | |||||
| Clinical failure No regression of abscess by clinical evaluation2 Follow‐up: mean 6 months | 35 per 100 | 5 per 100 (1 to 19) | RR 0.13 (0.03 to 0.55) | 77 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low3 | Only one study4 included patients with abscessed/fluctuant lymphadenitis. |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (eg the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (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: 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 Regional adenitis with signs of fluctuation or abscess formation.
2 Regression of the lesion not adequately described by authors, possible measurement bias.
3 Sequence generation, allocation concealment not described.