Summary of findings 2. Tacrolimus compared with ciclosporin for induction of remission in refractory ulcerative colitis.
| Tacrolimus compared with ciclosporin for induction of remission in refractory ulcerative colitis | ||||||
|
Patient or population: adults with refractory, moderate‐to‐severe ulcerative colitis Settings: not reported Intervention: tacrolimus (oral) Comparison: ciclosporin (intravenous) | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with ciclosporin | Risk with tacrolimus | |||||
| Clinical remission | Study population |
RR 1.52 (0.92 to 2.50) |
113 (1 RCT) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowb,c | — | |
| 300 per 1000a |
456 per 1000 (276 to 750) |
|||||
| Clinical improvement | Study population |
RR 0.90 (0.70 to 1.16) |
113 (1 RCT) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowb,c | — | |
| 775 per 1000 |
697 per 1000 (540 to 899) |
|||||
| Serious adverse events | — | — | — | — | — | Not reported |
| Total adverse events | — | — | — | — | — | Not reported |
| *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; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio. | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate certainty: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low certainty: 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 certainty: we are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
aThe risks with placebo were calculated by dividing the number of participants with events by the number of randomised participants. bDowngraded two levels due to risk of bias. cDowngraded one level due to imprecision from sparse data.