Skip to main content

Table 4 Summary of findings with GRADE recommendations

From: Efficacy and safety of prophylactic use of ketamine for prevention of postanesthetic shivering: a systematic review and meta analysis

ketamine for postoperative shivering

Patient or population: patients with postoperative shivering

Settings: hospitals

Intervention: ketamine

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risksa (95% CI)

Relative effect (95% CI)

No of Participants (studies)

Quality of the evidence (GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Control

Ketamine

Incidence of shivering

Study population

OR 0.13 (0.06 to 0.26)

1166 (13 studies)

low1

 

468 per 1000

103 per 1000 (50 to 186)

Moderate

500 per 1000

115 per 1000 (57 to 206)

Nausea and vomitting

Study population

OR 0.7 (0.44 to 1.12)

986 (11 studies)

low1

 

123 per 1000

89 per 1000 (58 to 136)

Moderate

125 per 1000

91 per 1000 (59 to 138)

Hypotension

Study population

OR 0.3 (0.18 to 0.49)

573 (7 studies)

very low1

 

225 per 1000

80 per 1000 (50 to 125)

Moderate

200 per 1000

70 per 1000 (43 to 109)

Bradycardia

Study population

OR 0.14 (0.04 to 0.52)

193 (2 studies)

very low1

 

136 per 1000

22 per 1000 (6 to 76)

Moderate

165 per 1000

27 per 1000 (8 to 93)

Hallucination

Study population

OR 4.41 (1.14 to 17.07)

423 (5 studies)

very low1

 

0 per 1000

0 per 1000 (0 to 0)

Moderate

0 per 1000

0 per 1000 (0 to 0)

  1. 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)
  2. CI Confidence interval; OR Odds ratio;
  3. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
  4. High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect
  5. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate
  6. 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
  7. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate