Summary of findings 1. Summary of findings table ‐ Starting short‐term prophylactic dose anticoagulation compared to avoiding anticoagulation for survivors of stroke due to intracerebral haemorrhage.
| Starting short‐term prophylactic dose anticoagulation compared to avoiding anticoagulation for survivors of stroke due to intracerebral haemorrhage | ||||||
| Patient or population: survivors of stroke due to intracerebral haemorrhage Setting: secondary care Intervention: starting short‐term prophylactic dose anticoagulation Comparison: avoiding anticoagulation | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with avoiding anticoagulation | Risk with starting short‐term prophylactic dose anticoagulation | |||||
| MACE ‐ not reported | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | |
| Death assessed with: clinical assessment follow‐up: 90 days | 175 per 1000 | 175 per 1000 (103 to 297) | RR 1.00 (0.59 to 1.70) | 258 (3 RCTs) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowa,b,c | |
| Venous thromboembolism assessed with: clinical assessment follow‐up: 90 days | 142 per 1000 | 119 per 1000 (72 to 195) | RR 0.84 (0.51 to 1.37) | 333 (4 RCTs) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowa,b,d | |
| Intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) assessed with: brain imaging and clinical assessment follow‐up: 90 days | 103 per 1000 | 25 per 1000 (4 to 143) | RR 0.24 (0.04 to 1.38) | 119 (2 RCTs) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowa,e | |
| Functional status: mRS 0‐2 assessed with: clinical assessment follow‐up: 90 days | 143 per 1000 | 290 per 1000 (111 to 750) | RR 2.03 (0.78 to 5.25) | 73 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowa,b,e | |
| *The risk in the intervention group (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; RR: risk ratio | ||||||
| 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. | ||||||
| See interactive version of this table: https://gdt.gradepro.org/presentations/#/isof/isof_question_revman_web_424458755853554175. | ||||||
a The included RCTs have serious risk of bias due to lack of blinding to treatment, and random sequence generation and allocation concealment not being adequately described. b The optimal information size (OIS) criterion is not met. The sample size of this study is probably lower than the minimum number of participants required for a trial adequately powered to identify a statistically significant difference for this outcome. c Very small pooled sample size d Low pooled sample size and event rate e Extremely small pooled sample size