Summary of findings 7. Low phosphorus intake plus lanthanum carbonate versus ad libitum diet plus lanthanum carbonate for people with CKD‐MBD.
| Low phosphorus intake plus lanthanum carbonate versus ad libitum diet plus lanthanum carbonate for people with CKD‐MBD | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with CKD‐MBD Settings: clinical research centre Intervention: Low phosphorus intake plus lanthanum carbonate Comparison: ad libitum diet plus lanthanum carbonate | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| ad libitum diet plus lanthanum carbonate | Low phosphorus intake plus lanthanum carbonate | |||||
| Serum phosphorus Follow‐up: mean 3 months | Mean serum phosphorus (control) 3.3 mg/dL |
Mean serum phosphorus (intervention) 0.1 mg/dL higher (0.38 lower to 0.58 higher) |
19 (1) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2 | ||
| FGF‐23 Follow‐up: mean 3 months | Mean FGF‐23 (control) 24.3 RU/mL |
Mean FGF‐23 (intervention) 333.80 RU/mL lower (141.00 lower to 526.6 higher) |
19 (1) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,3 | ||
| PTH Follow‐up: mean 3 months | Mean PTH (control) 68.9 pg/mL |
Mean PTH (intervention) 31.6 pg/mL higher (29.82 lower to 93.02 higher) |
19 (1) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2 | ||
| Mortality | Not reported | Not reported | Not estimable | ‐ | Not estimable | |
| Cardiovascular events | Not reported | Not reported | Not estimable | ‐ | Not estimable | |
| Fracture | Not reported | Not reported | Not estimable | ‐ | Not estimable | |
| *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% CI) 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 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 The study declared to have using randomised controlled methods, but no details of random sequence generation or allocation concealment. Performance bias, attrition bias and reporting bias were assessed as high risk 2 Only one published study was included. However, the result was negative 3 Only one published study was included