Summary of findings 2. Lorazepam IV versus diazepam plus phenytoin IV for status epilepticus.
| Lorazepam IV versus diazepam plus phenytoin IV for status epilepticus | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with status epilepticus Settings: Intervention: Lorazepam IV versus diazepam plus phenytoin IV | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Control | Lorazepam IV versus diazepam plus phenytoin IV | |||||
| Non‐cessation of seizures | Study population | RD ‐0.04 (‐0.35 to 0.26) | 370 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2,3 | ||
| 227 per 1000 | 179 per 1000 (127 to 257) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 221 per 1000 | 175 per 1000 (124 to 250) | |||||
| Adverse effects | Study population | RR 0.85 (0.63 to 1.15) | 370 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1,3 | ||
| 290 per 1000 | 246 per 1000 (182 to 333) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 281 per 1000 | 239 per 1000 (177 to 323) | |||||
| Deaths | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | 178 (1) | See comment | Reported in a single study |
| Requirement of Ventilatory support | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | 178 (1) | See comment | Reported in a single study |
| *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; IV: intravenous; 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 Even though one study did not have a clear concealment of allocation, this is possibly a lack of reporting. Lack of blinding in this study is unlikely to bias the outcome assessment as the outcomes are clearly detectable and objective. 2 The I square is 95%. 3 The number of events is small and confidence interval is wide.