Table 1.

Coding for the interpretation of the available evidence

Standardized statement	Situations included
Unknown effect: insufficient published research on the intervention's effect on the outcome	No RCTs, one low‐quality RCT with any result, or One moderate‐to‐high quality RCT where the 95% CI of the RR includes 1, or Only narrative reporting
Unknown effect: inconclusive published research on the intervention's effect on the outcome	At least two RCTs, 95% CI of the point estimate for an RR broadly spans both sides of 1 (ranges from <0.5 to >2)
Positive effect: the intervention likely reduces the risk of the adverse outcome	At least two moderate‐to‐high quality RCTs included in a meta‐analysis or IPD meta‐analysis, 95% CI of the point estimate of the RR is entirely less than 1
Possible positive effect: the intervention may reduce the risk of the adverse outcome	At least two RCTs included in a meta‐analysis or IPD meta‐analysis, 95% CI of the point estimate of the RR is entirely less than 1, but there is concern about the quality of the data, or At least two moderate‐to‐high quality RCTs included in a meta‐analysis or IPD meta‐analysis, 95% CI of the point estimate of the RR includes 1 but the 90% CI of the point estimate of the RR is entirely less than 1, or One moderate‐to‐high quality RCT, 95% CI of the point estimate of the RR is entirely less than 1
No positive effect: the intervention is unlikely to reduce the risk of the adverse outcome	Other situations, including meta‐analysis results suggestive of harm

CI, confidence interval; IPD, individual participant data; RCT, randomized controlled trial; RR, relative risk.