Table 6.

Quality of direct, indirect, and network evidence for buccal outcome

Outcomes	Comparison	Direct evidence		Indirect evidence		Network evidence
		Odds ratio (95% CI)	Quality of evidence	Odds ratio (95% CI)	Quality of evidence	Odds ratio (95% CI)	Quality of evidence
Vertical Buccal Height (VBH)	Con vs ColS (1 vs 2)	-	-	-	-	-	-
	Con vs NonCross (1 vs 3)	0.61 (− 2.66, − 1.13)	Moderate	− 1.89 (− 2.66, − 1.13)	Moderate	2.51 (1.58, 3.43)	Moderate
	Con vs Cross (1 vs 4)	0.1 (− 0.39, 0.59)	Moderate	2.61 (1.83, 3.38)	Moderate	− 2.51 (− 3.43, − 1.58)	Moderate
	ColS vs NonCross (2 vs 3)	-	-	-	-	-	-
	ColS V Cross	-	-	-	-	-	-
	Cross vs NonCross (4 vs 3)	2.0 (1.41, 2.58)	Moderate	− 0.51 (− 1.22, 0.20)	Low	2.51 (1.58, 3.43)	Moderate

High quality (⊕ ⊕  ⊕ ⊕)—we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate quality (⊕ ⊕  ⊕ O)—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 (⊕ ⊕ OO)—our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low quality (⊕ OOO)—we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect