Table III. Summary of findings for the difference in cleft width between pre-NAM and post-NAM (pre-lip surgery) treatment^†.

Outcomes	Anticipated absolute effects‡ (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	No. of Participants (studies)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)$	Comments
	Risk with no NAM control	Risk with NAM treatment
Cleft width difference	Tire inean cleft width difference was 0 mm	MD was 10.64 lower (11.49 lower vs 9.8 lower)	–	68 (2 RCTs)	⊕⊕◯◯ Low¶#	There is some evidence that NAM width reduces cleft width, but the quality of evidence is low

GRADE, Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.

^†NAM treatment compared with non-NAM control for patients with UCLP. Patient or population: health problem or population. Intervention: NAM treatment. Comparison: non-NAM control; ^‡The risk in the intervention group (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); ^§GRADE Working Group grades of evidence: (1) high certainty—we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect; (2) 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; (3) low certainty—our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be sub-stantially different from the estimate of the effect; and (4) 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; ^¶Downgraded as 1 of the 2 studies that were at high risk of bias; ^#Downgraded because of high heterogeneity (χ² = 58.33; degrees of freedom = 1; P <0.00001; I² + 98%).