Summary of findings 2. Summary of findings table ‐ Starting long‐term therapeutic dose oral anticoagulation compared to avoiding anticoagulation for survivors of stroke due to intracerebral haemorrhage with atrial fibrillation.
| Starting long‐term therapeutic dose oral anticoagulation compared to avoiding anticoagulation for survivors of stroke due to intracerebral haemorrhage with atrial fibrillation | ||||||
| Patient or population: survivors of stroke due to intracerebral haemorrhage with atrial fibrillation Setting: Secondary care Intervention: starting long‐term therapeutic dose oral 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 long‐term therapeutic dose oral anticoagulation | |||||
| MACE (MACE) assessed with: clinical assessment follow‐up: range 1 years to 3 years | 259 per 1000 | 158 per 1000 (104 to 244) | RR 0.61 (0.40 to 0.94) | 334 (3 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderatea,b | |
| Death assessed with: clinical assessment follow‐up: range 1 years to 3 years | 136 per 1000 | 143 per 1000 (84 to 242) | RR 1.05 (0.62 to 1.78) | 334 (3 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderatea,b | |
| All major occlusive vascular events assessed with: clinical assessment follow‐up: range 1 years to 3 years | 210 per 1000 | 57 per 1000 (29 to 111) | RR 0.27 (0.14 to 0.53) | 334 (3 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderateb | |
| Intracranial haemorrhage assessed with: clinical assessment follow‐up: range 1 years to 3 years | 31 per 1000 | 75 per 1000 (27 to 208) | RR 2.43 (0.88 to 6.73) | 334 (3 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderatea,c | |
| Functional status (mRS 0‐2) assessed with: clinical assessment follow‐up: 1 years | 490 per 1000 | 480 per 1000 (382 to 607) | RR 0.98 (0.78 to 1.24) | 288 (2 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowb,d | |
| *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_431448658702855854. | ||||||
a All included randomised trials were open label, but these outcomes were objective. b These are the results of a small number of events being observed in three RCTs with relatively small sample sizes. c The pooled estimate was imprecise due to the small number of outcome events d All included randomised trials were open label, and this outcome was subjective