2. Draft Summary of Findings table.
| Summary of findings for the main comparison: Hybrid repair versus conventional open repair for aortic arch dissection | ||||||
|
Patient or population: patients with a diagnosis of aortic arch dissection Settings: hospital Intervention: hybrid repair Comparison: open repair | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Number of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with open repair | Risk with hybrid repair | |||||
| Mortality, Follow‐up: median N (months) |
Study population |
HR N (N to N) |
N (N) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate ⊕⊕⊕⊕ high |
||
| N per 1000 | N per 1000 (N to N) | |||||
| Neurological deficit, Follow‐up: median N (months) |
Study population |
RR N (N to N) |
N (N) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate ⊕⊕⊕⊕ high |
||
| N per 1000 | N per 1000 (N to N) | |||||
| Cardiac injury, Follow‐up: median N (months) |
Study population |
RR N (N to N) |
N (N) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate ⊕⊕⊕⊕ high |
||
| N per 1000 | N per 1000 (N to N) | |||||
| Respiratory compromise, Follow‐up: median N (months) |
Study population |
RR N (N to N) |
N (N) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate ⊕⊕⊕⊕ high |
||
| N per 1000 | N per 1000 (N to N) | |||||
| Renal ischaemia, Follow‐up: median N (months) |
Study population |
RR N (N to N) |
N (N) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate ⊕⊕⊕⊕ high |
||
| N per 1000 | N per 1000 (N to N) | |||||
| False lumen thrombosis, Follow‐up: median N (months) |
Study population |
RR N (N to N) |
N (N) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate ⊕⊕⊕⊕ high |
||
| N per 1000 | N per 1000 (N to N) | |||||
| Mesenteric ischaemia, Follow‐up: median N (months) |
Study population |
RR N (N to N) |
N (N) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate ⊕⊕⊕⊕ high |
||
| N per 1000 | N per 1000 (N to N) | |||||
| *The risk in the intervention group (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; N: number; HR: hazard ratio; RR: risk ratio | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect 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 Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect 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 | ||||||