Summary of findings 6. Tenckhoff catheter with artificial curve at tunnel tract versus swan‐neck for preventing catheter‐related infections in chronic peritoneal dialysis patients.
| Tenckhoff catheter with artificial curve at tunnel tract versus swan‐neck for preventing catheter‐related infections in chronic peritoneal dialysis patients | |||||
| Patient or population: preventing catheter‐related infections in chronic peritoneal dialysis patients Intervention: Tenckhoff catheter with artificial curve at tunnel tract Comparison: swan‐neck | |||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No. of participants or patient‐months (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | |
| Risk with swan‐neck | Risk with Tenckhoff | ||||
| Peritonitis | 329 per 1,000 | 424 per 1,000 (279 to 644) | RR 1.29 (0.85 to 1.96) | 140 (2) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW 1 |
| Peritonitis rate (patient‐months) | 47 per 1,000 | 57 per 1,000 (25 to 129) | RR 1.22 (0.54 to 2.75) | 2535 (2) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW 2 |
| Exit‐site/tunnel infection | 671 per 1,000 | 645 per 1,000 (517 to 812) | RR 0.96 (0.77 to 1.21) | 140 (2) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATE 3 |
| Exit‐site/tunnel infection rate (patient‐months) | 83 per 1,000 | 55 per 1,000 (41 to 74) | RR 0.67 (0.50 to 0.90) | 2535 (2) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATE 3 |
| Catheter removal or replacement | 229 per 1,000 | 194 per 1,000 (96 to 393) | RR 0.85 (0.42 to 1.72) | 140 (2) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATE 3 |
| Technique failure | 157 per 1,000 | 101 per 1,000 (41 to 248) | RR 0.64 (0.26 to 1.58) | 140 (2) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATE 3 |
| Death (all causes) | 114 per 1,000 | 85 per 1,000 (31 to 232) | RR 0.74 (0.27 to 2.03) | 140 (2) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW 1 |
| *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 | |||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate certainty: 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 certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low certainty: 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 two levels: suboptimal quality of studies and imprecision
2 Downgraded two levels: suboptimal quality of studies and inconsistency
3 Downgraded one level: suboptimal quality of studies