|
Oxidised Regenerated Cellulose versus No Treatment at Laporoscopy for adhesion prevention after gynaecological surgery (Ahmad 2014(a)) |
|
Patient or population: Women undergoing laparotomy
Settings: Gynaecological surgery
Intervention: Oxidised regenerated cellulose versus no treatment/control at laparotomy |
| 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 treatment |
Oxidised Regenerated Cellulose |
| Pelvic Pain |
|
|
|
|
|
Not Reported |
| Pregnancy Rate |
|
|
|
|
|
Not Reported |
| Live Birth Rate |
|
|
|
|
|
Not Reported |
| Quality of Life |
|
|
|
|
|
Not Reported |
|
Incidence of adhesions ‐ De novo
Incidence at second look laparoscopy |
282 per 1000 |
220 per 1000
(141 to 329) |
OR 0.72
(0.42 to 1.25) |
271
(1 study) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,2
|
|
|
Incidence of adhesions ‐ Reformation (or mixture)
Incidence at second look laparoscopy |
746 per 1000 |
528 per 1000
(451 to 618) |
OR 0.38
(0.27 to 0.55) |
554
(6 studies) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝
low2,3
|
|
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (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: 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 The one study investigating this comparison was at high risk of attrition bias, with a 22% dropout rate. It was also at unclear risk of selection, performance or detection bias. Therefore, the quality of the result was downgraded.
2 There was potential publication bias, with Ahmad 2014(a) reporting that there was evidence of duplicate publication data and the existence of unreported data. The specific evidence for this was not detailed in the paper, though they do state that they had contacted the initial authors.
3 Five of The six studies were at unclear risk of selection bias, performance bias and detection bias. One study was deemed at high risk of attrition bias, with two studies at unclear risk. One study was deemed at high risk of reporting bias, with the other five being at unclear risk. Therefore, the quality of the result was downgraded. |
