Table 4.

Summary of findings table with comparison between octenidine and saline solution in chronic wound care.

Comparison Three: Octenidine Compared to Saline for Chronic Wound Care
Patient or Population: Chronic Wound Care Intervention: Octenidine Comparison: Saline
Outcomes	Anticipated Absolute Effects * (95% CI)		Relative Effect (95% CI)	№ of Participants (Studies)	Certainty of the Evidence (GRADE)
	Risk with Saline	Risk with Octenidine
Wound healing assessed with: Proportion of patients with complete wound healing follow-up: mean 12 weeks	242 per 1000	250 per 1000 (136 to 461)	RR 1.0313 (0.5595 to 1.9009)	126 (1 RCT)	⨁⨁⨁⨁ HIGH
Adverse events assessed with: AE report follow-up: mean 12 weeks	317 per 1000	178 per 1000 (90 to 351)	RR 0.5614 (0.2844 to 1.1081)	120 (1 RCT)	⨁⨁⨁⨁ HIGH
Healing rate assessed with: planimetry follow-up: mean 12 weeks	No difference in the healing rate of the patients in the octenidine group, compared to patients in the saline group (37.9% vs. 40.3%; p = 0.769) [29].			(1 RCT)	⨁⨁⨁⨁ HIGH
Pain assessment—not measured	Not reported			-	-
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.

* The risk in the intervention group (and 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio; RCT: randomised controlled trial.