Skip to main content

Table 3 GRADE summary of findings table

From: The safety and efficiency of intravenous administration of tranexamic acid in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG): a meta-analysis of 28 randomized controlled trials

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risksa (95% CI)

Relative effect (95% CI)

No of Participants (studies)

Quality of the evidence (GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Control

Corresponding risk

Tranexamic acid versus placebo

Cerebrovascular accident

Study population

RR 0.93 (0.62 to 1.39)

6775 (22 studies)

⊕ ⊕ ⊕⊝ moderateb

 

13 per 1000

12 per 1000 (8 to 18)

Moderate

0 per 1000

0 per 1000 (0 to 0)

Seizure

Study population

RR 6.67 (1.77 to 25.20)

4911 (4 studies)

⊕ ⊕ ⊕ ⊕  highc,d

 

1 per 1000

5 per 1000 (1 to 20)

Moderate

0 per 1000

0 per 1000 (0 to 0)

Reoperation for bleeding

Study population

RR 0.46 (0.31 to 0.68)

6259 (16 studies)

⊕ ⊕ ⊕ ⊕  highe,f

 

25 per 1000

11 per 1000 (8 to 17)

Moderate

22 per 1000

10 per 1000 (7 to 15)

Mortality

Study population

RR 0.82 (0.53 to 1.28)

6414 (17 studies)

⊕ ⊕ ⊕⊝ moderateb,g

 

13 per 1000

10 per 1000 (7 to 16)

Moderate

0 per 1000

0 per 1000 (0 to 0)

Myocardial infarction

Study population

RR 0.9 (0.78 to 1.05)

6714 (23 studies)

⊕ ⊕ ⊕⊝ moderatee

 

97 per 1000

87 per 1000 (75 to 101)

Moderate

0 per 1000

0 per 1000 (0 to 0)

Acute renal insufficiency

Study population

RR 1.01 (0.78 to 1.3)

5954 (14 studies)

⊕ ⊕ ⊕⊝ moderateb

 

37 per 1000

37 per 1000 (29 to 48)

Moderate

20 per 1000

20 per 1000 (16 to 26)

Transfusion of any blood products

Study population

RR 0.64 (0.52 to 0.78)

5360 (11 studies)

⊕⊝⊝⊝ very lowb,h

 

553 per 1000

354 per 1000 (288 to 432)

Moderate

560 per 1000

358 per 1000 (291 to 437)

Postoperative chest tube drainage in the first 24 h

 

The mean postoperative chest tube drainage in the first 24 h in the intervention groups was 206.19 lower (248.23 to 164.15 lower)

 

6247 (16 studies)

⊕⊝⊝⊝ very lowh,i

 
  1. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
  2. High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect
  3. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate
  4. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate
  5. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate
  6. CI Confidence interval, RR Risk ratio, OR Odds ratio
  7. aThe basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (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)
  8. b4 studies with a high risk of bias were included
  9. cfew studies reported this result
  10. dRR > 5
  11. e5 studies with a high risk of bias were included
  12. fRR < 0.5
  13. gNo explanation was provided
  14. hI2 > 75%
  15. i2 studies with a high risk of bias were included
Back to article page

BMC Anesthesiology

ISSN: 1471-2253

Contact us