Summary of findings 2. Intervention versus control for liver transplantation (thromboembolic episodes and other serious adverse events).
| Intervention versus control for liver transplantation | ||||||
| Patient or population: Patients with liver transplantation. Settings: Transplantation centre. Intervention: Intervention versus control. | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Control | Intervention versus control | |||||
| Thromboembolic episodes ‐ Aprotinin versus control | Study population | RR 0.6 (0.18 to 1.96) | 280 (3 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 | ||
| 42 per 1000 | 25 per 1000 (8 to 82) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 63 per 1000 | 38 per 1000 (11 to 123) | |||||
| Thromboembolic episodes ‐ Tranexamic acid versus control | Study population | RR 2.2 (0.38 to 12.64) | 179 (5 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 | ||
| 13 per 1000 | 29 per 1000 (5 to 166) | |||||
| Thromboembolic episodes ‐ Recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) versus control | Study population | RR 1.38 (0.65 to 2.91) | 266 (2 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 | ||
| 99 per 1000 | 136 per 1000 (64 to 287) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 101 per 1000 | 139 per 1000 (66 to 294) | |||||
| Serious adverse events ‐ Recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) versus control | Study population | RR 1.3 (0.94 to 1.78) | 266 (2 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,3,4 | ||
| 370 per 1000 | 481 per 1000 (348 to 659) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 406 per 1000 | 528 per 1000 (382 to 723) | |||||
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (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: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1 All trials were at high risk of bias, 2 The confidence intervals overlap 0.75 and 1.25. 3 Funnel plots could not be performed for any of the outcomes. 4 Although the confidence intervals do not overlap 0.75 and 1.25, the confidence intervals were wide.