Summary of findings 10. Etanercept compared to cyclosporin.

Summary of findings:
Etanercept compared to cyclosporin for treatment of Stevens‐Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), and SJS/TEN overlap syndrome
Patient or population: Stevens‐Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), and SJS/TEN overlap syndrome Setting: no studies found Intervention: etanercept Comparison: cyclosporin
Outcomes	Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	№ of participants (studies)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Risk with cyclosporin	Risk with etanercept
Disease‐specific mortality ‐ not reported	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐	We found no studies for the comparison of etanercept to cyclosporin.
Time to complete re‐epithelialisation ‐ not reported	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐
Intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay ‐ not reported	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐
Total hospital length of stay ‐ not reported	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐
Adverse effects leading to discontinuation of SJS/TEN therapy ‐ not reported	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐
*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
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.