Table 2.

Assessment of quality of evidence of outcomes EUS-biliary drainage versus percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography

Certainty assessment							Number of patients		Effect		Certainty	Importance
Number of studies	Study design	Risk of bias	Inconsistency	Indirectness	Imprecision	Other considerations	Intervention (%)	Comparison (%)	Relative (95% CI)	Absolute (95% CI)
Technical success rate
10	Randomized trials and retrospective comparative studies	Seriousa	Not serious	Not serious	Not serious	None	230/289 (79.6)	270/284 (95.1)	OR: 0.47 (0.20–1.07)	50 fewer per 1000 (from 157 fewer to 3 more)	⨁⨁⨁◯ (moderate)	Critical
Clinical success rate
10	Randomized trials and retrospective comparative studies	Seriousa	Not serious	Not serious	Not serious	None	250/278 (89.9)	248/280 (88.6)	OR: 0.73 (0.34–1.57)	36 fewer per 1,000 (from 161 fewer to 38 more)	⨁⨁⨁◯ (moderate)	Critical
Acute adverse events
10	Randomized trials and retrospective comparative studies	Seriousa	Not serious	Not serious	Seriousb	None	45/288 (15.6)	140/285 (49.1)	OR: 0.17 (0.09–0.31)	350 fewer per 1000 (from 411 fewer to 261 fewer)	⨁⨁◯◯ (low)	Important
Chronic or delayed adverse events
10	Randomized trials and retrospective comparative studies	Seriousa	Not serious	Not serious	Not seriousb	None	12/288 (4.2)	14/285 (4.9)	OR: 0.73 (0.34–1.57)	13 fewer per 1000 (from 32 fewer to 26 more)	⨁⨁⨁◯ (moderate)	Critical
Total adverse events
10	Randomized trials and retrospective comparative studies	Seriousa	Not serious	Not serious	Seriousb	None	54/288 (18.8)	219/285 (76.8)	OR: 0.05 (0.01–0.20)	626 fewer per 1000 (from 736 fewer to 370 fewer)	⨁⨁◯◯ (low)	Important

^a The meta-analysis has RCTs and comparative studies, so there is a possible selection bias in comparative studies, ^b The included studies have few patients and thus have very few reported events. CI: Confidence interval; OR: Odds ratio; RCTs: Randomized controlled trials