Table 4.
Summary of findings on GFCF versus usual diet.
| Outcome (Timeframe) |
Study Results and Measurements | Certainty of the Evidence (Justification for Ratings) |
|---|---|---|
| Clinician assessed core symptoms (Minimum 6 months) |
SMD: −0.31 (CI 95% −0.89–0.27) Based on data from 120 patients in four studies Follow up: 3–12 months |
Very low a,b,c,d |
| Parent assessed functional level (Minimum 6 months) |
MD: 0.61 (CI 95% −5.92–7.14) Based on data from 55 patients in one study Follow up: 12 months |
Very low a,e |
| Parent assessed conduct problems (Minimum 6 months) |
MD: 1.80 (CI 95% −6.56–10.16) Based on data from 22 patients in one study Follow up: 3 months |
Very low a,c,d |
| Body mass index, kg/m2 (Minimum 6 months) |
MD: 0.30 (CI 95% −1.81–2.41) Based on data from 63 patients in one study |
Very low e,f |
| Number of persons with gastrointestinal discomfort (Minimum 6 months) |
RR: 2.33 (CI 95% 0.69–7.90) Based on data from 22 patients in one study Follow up: 3 months |
Very low a,c,d |
| Number of persons with side effects (Minimum 6 months) |
RR: 1.89 (CI 95% 1.11–3.21) RD: 0.23 (CI 95% −0.26–0.72) Based on data from 94 patients in two studies Follow up: 3–12 months |
Very low a,c,d |
CI: confidence interval; MD: mean difference; RD: risk difference; RR: risk ratio; SMD: standardized mean differences. Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate. a serious risk of bias; b serious risk of inconsistency; c serious risk of indirectness; d serious risk of imprecision; e very serious risk of imprecision; f very serious risk of bias.