Table 5.
GRADE summary table of outcome indicator evidence quality.
| Tongxinluo capsule combined with atorvastatin for coronary heart disease | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with coronary heart disease | ||||||
| Settings: in the hospital and home-based | ||||||
| Intervention: tongxinluo capsule combined with atorvastatin | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| 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 | Tongxinluo capsule combined with atorvastatin | |||||
|
| ||||||
| Effectiveness of clinical treatment 9 | Study population | RR 1.24 (1.18 to 1.29) | 1,480 (14 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝Lowa,b | ||
| 750 per 1000 | 930 per 1000 (885 to 967) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 730 per 1000 | 905 per 1000 (861 to 942) | |||||
|
| ||||||
| TC 7 | The mean total cholesterol in the intervention groups was 1.21 lower (1.53 to 0.89 lower) | 960 (9 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝Moderatea | |||
|
| ||||||
| TG 7 | The mean triacylglycerol in the intervention groups was 0.73 lower (0.81 to 0.65 lower) | 852 (9 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝Lowa,b | |||
|
| ||||||
| HDL-C 7 | The mean high density lipoprotein cholesterol in the intervention groups was 0.27 higher (0.23 to 0.31 higher) | 643 (6 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝Moderatea | |||
|
| ||||||
| LDL-C 7 | The mean low density lipoprotein cholesterol in the intervention groups was 0.72 lower (0.8 to 0.64 lower) | 764 (8 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝Lowa,b | |||
|
| ||||||
| Frequency of angina pectoris 5 | The mean frequency of angina pectoris in the intervention groups was 1.41 standard deviations lower (1.97 to 0.85 lower) | 532 (5 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝Very lowa,c,d | |||
|
| ||||||
| Duration of angina pectoris 5 | The mean duration of angina pectoris in the intervention groups was 2.30 lower (3.39 to 1.21 lower) | 372 (4 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝Lowa,d | |||
|
| ||||||
| CRP 6 | The mean CRP in the intervention groups was 2.06 standard deviations lower (2.56 to 1.57 lower) | 690 (7 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝Lowa,c | SMD −2.06 (−2.56 to −1.57) | ||
|
| ||||||
| Adverse reactions 5 | Study population | RR 0.84 (0.51 to 1.39) | 695 (6 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝Lowa,d | ||
| 89 per 1000 | 75 per 1000 (45 to 124) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 87 per 1000 | 73 per 1000 (44 to 121) | |||||
∗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% 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; 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. aDowngraded one level as random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, or selective reporting were poorly described in over 50% of the included studies. bPublication bias. cUnit conversion may produce interstudy heterogeneity. dFewer patients and observations included in the study. 1,2,3Unimportant outcome indicators. 4,5,6Important outcome indicators. 7,8,9Critical outcome indicators.