Summary of findings 2.
Active drain versus passive drain for pancreatic surgery
| Active drain versus passive drain for pancreatic surgery | ||||||
| Patient or population: people undergoing elective open pancreatic resections Intervention: active drain versus passive drain | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Passive drain | Active drain | |||||
| Mortality (30 days) | Study population | RR 2.86 (0.12 to 69.06) | 160 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 | ‐ | |
| 0 per 1000 | 0 per 1000 (0 to 0) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 0 per 1000 | 0 per 1000 (0 to 0) | |||||
| Intra‐abdominal infection | Study population | RR 0.19 (0.01 to 3.9) | 160 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 | ‐ | |
| 26 per 1000 | 5 per 1000 (0 to 100) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 26 per 1000 | 5 per 1000 (0 to 101) | |||||
| Morbidity | Study population | RR 0.68 (0.41 to 1.15) | 160 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,3,4 | ‐ | |
| 321 per 1000 | 218 per 1000 (131 to 369) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 321 per 1000 | 218 per 1000 (132 to 369) | |||||
| Length of hospital stay | The mean length of hospital stay in the passive drain was 14.5 days | The mean length of hospital stay in the active drain was 1.9 days lower (3.67 to 0.13 lower) | MD ‐1.90 (‐3.67 to ‐0.13) | 160 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,3,5 | ‐ |
| *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; MD: mean difference; 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 Downgraded one level for serious risk of bias. 2 Downgraded two levels for very serious imprecision (small sample sizes, very few events, confidence intervals of risk ratios overlapped 0.75 and 1.25). 3 Publication bias could not be assessed because of the few trials. 4 Downgraded one level for serious imprecision (small sample sizes, very few events). 5 Downgraded one level due to serious imprecision (total population size was less than 400).