Table 1.
Example Summary of findings table: percutaneous thrombectomy for initial management of acute limb ischaemia
| Percutaneous thrombectomy versus open surgery | ||||||
|
Patient or population: adults with acute limb ischaemia (ALI), classified as Rutherford classification I and II Settings: hospital Intervention: percutaneous thrombectomy1 Comparison: open surgery | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects * (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No. of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with open surgery | Risk with percutaneous thrombectomy | |||||
|
Primary patency (follow‐up) |
[value] per 1000 |
[value] per 1000 ([value] to [value]) |
RR [value] ([value] to [value]) |
[value] ([value]) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate ⊕⊕⊕⊕ high |
|
|
Amputation rate (follow‐up) |
[value] per 1000 |
[value] per 1000 ([value] to [value]) |
RR [value] ([value] to [value]) |
[value] ([value]) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate ⊕⊕⊕⊕ high |
|
|
Major bleeding (follow‐up) |
[value] per 1000 |
[value] per 1000 ([value] to [value]) |
RR [value] ([value] to [value]) |
[value] ([value]) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate ⊕⊕⊕⊕ high |
|
|
Clinical success (improvement by at least one category in the Rutherford's classification for ALI) (follow‐up) |
[value] per 1000 |
[value] per 1000 ([value] to [value]) |
RR [value] ([value] to [value]) |
[value] ([value]) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate ⊕⊕⊕⊕ high |
|
|
Secondary patency (follow‐up) |
[value] per 1000 |
[value] per 1000 ([value] to [value]) |
RR [value] ([value] to [value]) |
[value] ([value]) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate ⊕⊕⊕⊕ high |
|
|
Adverse effects (follow‐up) |
[value] per 1000 |
[value] per 1000 ([value] to [value]) |
RR [value] ([value] to [value]) |
[value] ([value]) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate ⊕⊕⊕⊕ high |
|
| * 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) ALI: acute limb ischaemia; 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 | ||||||
1Percutaneous thrombectomy may involve any of the following techniques: mechanical thrombectomy (aspiration, rheolysis, rotation, and ultrasound‐enhanced thrombolysis) and pharmomechanical thrombectomy