Summary of findings 3. CBT with therapist support compared to fatigue information leaflet only for participants with IBD.
CBT with therapist support compared to fatigue information leaflet only for participants with IBD | ||||||
Patient or population: participants with IBD Setting: outpatients from a single centre in the United Kingdom Intervention: CBT with therapist support Comparison: fatigue information leaflet only | ||||||
Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
Risk with fatigue information leaflet only | Risk with CBT with therapist support | |||||
Fatigue assessed with: IBD‐F Section I follow‐up: 3 months | The mean fatigue score was 9.45 | MD 2.16 lower (6.13 lower to 1.81 higher) | ‐ | 18 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW 1 2 | IBD‐F Section I scores ranged from 0 to 20, with higher scores indicating greater levels of fatigue. |
Fatigue assessed with: IBD‐F Section II Scale from: 0 to 120 follow‐up: 3 months | The mean fatigue score was 47.33 | MD 21.62 lower (45.02 lower to 1.78 higher) | ‐ | 16 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW 1 2 | IBD‐F Section II scores ranged from 0 to 120, with higher scores indicating greater impact of fatigue. |
Quality of life assessed with: UK‐IBDQ follow‐up: 3 months | The mean quality of life score was 95.7 | MD 0.19 higher (9.32 lower to 9.7 higher) | ‐ | 19 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW 1 2 | UK‐IBDQ scores ranged from 32 to 224, with higher scores indicating better quality of life. |
Adverse events | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | This outcome was not measured. | |
Serious adverse events | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | This outcome was not measured. | |
Withdrawal due to adverse events | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | This outcome was not measured. | |
*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; OR: Odds 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 for very serious imprecision; small number of participants from a single study and the confidence interval was wide.
2 Downgraded one level due to risk of bias in blinding of participants and personnel and blinding in outcome assessment.