Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of findings (SoF) table using GRADE methodology

From: Parenteral anticoagulation may prolong the survival of patients with limited small cell lung cancer: a Cochrane systematic review

Parenteral anticoagulation for prolonging survival of patients with cancer

Patient or population: Patients with cancer

Settings: Outpatient

Intervention: Parenteral anticoagulation

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect (95% CI)

No of Participants (studies)

Quality of the evidence (GRADE)

Comments

 

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

    
 

Control

Parenteral anticoagulation

    

Survival

Low risk population

HR 0.77 (0.65 to 0.91)

1174 (5)

O moderate4

 
 

500 per 1000

414 per 1000 (363 to 468)

    
 

Moderate risk population

    
 

1000 per 1000

1000 per 1000 (1000 to 1000)

    

DVT

Low risk population

RR 0.61 (0.08 to 4.91)

458 (2)

OOO very low1,2

 
 

10 per 1000

6 per 1000 (1 to 49)

    
 

High risk population

    
 

40 per 1000

24 per 1000 (3 to 196)

    

Major bleeding

Low risk population

RR 1.50 (0.26 to 8.8)

814 (3)

OO low1,3

 
 

0 per 1000

0 per 1000 (0 to 0)

    
 

High risk population

    
 

100 per 1000

150 per 1000 (26 to 880)

    

Minor bleeding

Low risk population

RR 2.07 (0.78 to 5.51)

760 (3)

OO low1,3

 
 

0 per 1000

0 per 1000 (0 to 0)

    
 

High risk population

    
 

30 per 1000

62 per 1000 (23 to 165)

    
  1. *The 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; RR: Risk ratio; HR: Hazard 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.
  8. 1 The 95% CI includes both negligible effect and appreciable benefit or appreciable harm
  9. 2 Out of 5 included studies, only 2 reported DVT
  10. 3 Out of 5 included studies, only 3 reported major bleeding
  11. 4Result statistically significant in only one subgroup.