Summary of findings for the main comparison. Cabbage cream for breast engorgement during lactation.
| Cabbage cream for breast engorgement during lactation | ||||||
|
Patient or population: women with breast engorgement during lactation
Settings: Royal Darwin and Darwin Private Hospital, Australia
Intervention: cabbage cream Comparison: placebo | ||||||
| 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 | Cabbage cream | |||||
| Breast pain Bourbonaise pain scale | The mean breast pain in the intervention groups was 0.4 higher (0.67 lower to 1.47 higher) | 39 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 |
Higher score indicates more pain ‐ Bourbonaise pain scale ranks pain on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 representing no pain and 10 representing excruciating pain. | ||
| Breast induration/hardness | This outcome was not reported in the trial. | |||||
| Breast swelling | This outcome was not reported in the trial. | |||||
| Breast engorgement Hill and Humenich Breast engorgement scale Follow‐up: mean 4 days | The mean engorgement in the intervention groups was 0.2 higher (0.18 lower to 0.58 higher) | 39 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 |
Higher score indicates more engorgement ‐ Hill and Humenich Breast engorgement scale ranks engorgement on a scale from 0 to 6, with 0 representing soft, no change in breasts and 6 representing very firm, very tender. | ||
| Analgesic requirement | This outcome was not reported in the trial. | |||||
| *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% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval | ||||||
| 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 number of participants was even smaller than the pre‐determined sample size. 2 Limitations in study design due to a significant imbalance in primiparas at baseline (high risk of bias for other bias).