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.