Table 15.
GRADE Evidence Profile comparing rectal mesalamine with placebo for induction and maintenance of remission in patients with mild-moderate ulcerative proctosigmoiditis
| RECTAL MESALAMINE ENEMAS COMPARED TO PLACEBO FOR MILD-MODERATE ULCERATIVE PROCTOSIGMOIDITIS | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Absolute effect | № of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | |
| Risk with placebo | Risk with rectal mesalamine enemas | |||||
| Failure to induce remission | 732 per 1,000 | 366 per 1,000 (256 to 534) | RR 0.50 (0.35 to 0.73) | 366 fewer per 1,000 (from 198 fewer to 476 fewer) | 342 (4 RCTs) | ⨁⨁⨁◯1 MODERATE |
| Failure to maintain remission | 846 per 1,000 | 254 per 1,000 (93 to 685) | RR 0.30 (0.11 to 0.81) | 592 fewer per 1,000 (from 161 fewer to 753 fewer) | 25 (1 RCT) | ⨁⨁⨁◯1 MODERATE |
|
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect | ||||||
1
Rated down for imprecision since optimal information size not met (<200 events)