Table A4.
GRADE analysis for clinical studies.
| Quality Assessment | Nº of Patients | Effect | Quality | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nº of Studies | Design | Risk of Bias | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Intervention | Control | Relative (95%CI) | Absolute | |
| Strauven (2019). Interdisciplinary case conferences for nursing home staff vs. usual care | ||||||||||
| 1 | CRCT | Serious risk of bias NHs that applied freely were included and high number of missing data) |
No Serious inconsistency | No Serious indirectness | Serious imprecision (very wide range of results) |
847 | 957 | Effect in favor of the intervention: (odds ratio 1.479 [95% CI 1.062–2.059, P = 0.021]). |
Moderate +++/++++ |
|
Abbreviations: CI: confidence interval; GRADE: Grading of Recommendations; CRCT: cluster-randomized controlled trial; NH: nursing homes; Quality of evidence grades: high (++++), moderate (+++), low (++), very low (+).