Table 10.

GRADE evidence profile ratings for PICO 11.

Question: Aggressive vascular risk factor control, including lipid management compared to for outcome
Setting: Patients with an ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack related to a high-grade ICAS.
Certainty assessment							No. of patients		Effect		Certainty	Importance
No. of studies	Study design	Risk of bias	Inconsistency	Indirectness	Imprecision	Other considerations	Aggressive vascular risk factor control, including lipid management		Relative (95% CI)	Absolute (95% CI)
Recurrent IS – Target SBP < 120 mmHg versus SBP < 140 mmHg
1	Randomized trials	Not serious	Not serious	Not serious	Very seriousa,b,c,d	None	1/59 (1.7%)	1/52 (1.9%)	Not estimable		⨁⨁◯◯ Low
Recurrent IS – intensive dose atorvastatin versus low dose atorvastatin
1	Randomized trials	Not serious	Not serious	Not serious	Very seriousb,c	None	2/37 (5.4%)	10/38 (26.3%)	Not estimable		⨁⨁◯◯ Low
Risk of MACE – target SBP < 120 mmHg versus SBP < 140 mmHg
1	Randomized trials	Not serious	Not serious	Not serious	Very seriousb,c,d	None	14/59 (23.7%)	12/52 (23.1%)	Not estimable		⨁⨁◯◯ Low	CRITICAL
Mortality – target SBP < 120 mmHg versus SBP < 140 mmHg
1	Randomized trials	Not serious	Not serious	Not serious	Very seriousb,c,d,e	None	0/59 (0.0%)	0/52 (0.0%)	Not estimable		⨁⨁◯◯ Low	CRITICAL
Mortality – intensive dose atorvastatin versus low dose atorvastatin
1	Randomized trials	Not serious	Not serious	Not serious	Very seriousb,c,e	None	0/37 (0.0%)	0/38 (0.0%)	Not estimable		⨁⨁◯◯ Low	CRITICAL

CI: confidence interval.

^aVery few events.

^bResults from only one RCT.

^cSample size included in analysis did not match the prespecified sample size for the RCT.

^dBP target not achieved in the intensive BP lowering group.

^eNo event.