Skip to main content
. 2020 Sep 22;10(3):109–122. doi: 10.4103/IJCIIS.IJCIIS_155_20

Table 5.

Grade quality of evidence ratings

Certainty assessment
Summary of findings
Study number Study design Risk of bias Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Other considerations Number of patients
Effect
CC with AVF device Standard manual CC Relative (95% CI) Absolute (95% CI) Certainty
Sustained ROSC
4 RCT Not serious Seriousa Not serious Not serious None 351/530 (66.2%) 217/534 (40.6%) RR 1.68 (1.39-2.04) 276 more per 1000 (from 158 more to 423 more) ⨁⨁⨁◯
Moderate
Survival to ICU discharge
2 RCT Not serious Seriousa Not serious Not serious None 278/461 (60.3%) 156/461 (33.8%) RR 1.78 (1.54-2.06) 264 more per 1000 (from 189 more to 359 more) ⨁⨁⨁◯
Moderate
Survival to hospital discharge
3 RCT Not serious Seriousa Not serious Not serious None 253/490 (51.6%) 132/494 (26.7%) RR 1.91 (1.62-2.25) 243 more per 1000 (from 166 more to 334 more) ⨁⨁⨁◯
Moderate

aRisk of bias due to lack of blinding. CC: Chest compressions; AVF: Audiovisual feedback; ROSC: Return of spontaneous circulation; RCT: Randomized controlled trial; CI: Confidence interval; RR: Relative risk