Summary of findings for the main comparison. Dialysis machine separation versus usual care.

Should patients with HCV be isolated in haemodialysis units for controlling the transmission of HCV?
Patient or population: patients in haemodialysis Setting: ambulatory Intervention: isolation Comparison: usual care
Outcomes	Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	No. of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Risk with usual care	Risk with isolation
Incidence of HCV infection (9 months)	Study population		RR 0.34 (0.11 to 1.07)	446 (1)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW	Very low quality of evidence due to high risk of bias and imprecision
	47 per 1.000	16 per 1.000 (5 to 50)
Incidence of HCV infection (18 months)	Study population		RR 0.22 (0.05 to 1.02)	281 (1)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW	Very low quality of evidence due to high risk of bias and imprecision
	58 per 1.000	13 per 1.000 (3 to 59)
*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; RR: Risk ratio
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate quality: 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 quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect