Skip to main content

Table 3 GRADE assessment of outcome measures

From: Meta-analysis of RCTs on the safety of non-fixation of mesh in TAPP inguinal hernia repair: an updated meta-analysis

Quality assessment

No of patients

Effect

Quality

Importance

No of studies

Design

Risk of bias

Inconsistency

Indirectness

Imprecision

Other considerations

Seroma occurrence rate

Control

Relative

(95% CI)

Absolute

Seroma occurrence rate

7

randomised trials

serious1,2

no serious inconsistency

no serious indirectness

no serious imprecision

none

9/709

(1.3%)

31/994

(3.1%)

RR 0.43 (0.2 to 0.89)

18 fewer per 1000 (from 3 fewer to 25 fewer)

O

MODERATE

IMPORTANT

 

3.2%

18 fewer per 1000 (from 4 fewer to 26 fewer)

overall complication rate

6

randomised trials

serious1,2

no serious inconsistency

no serious indirectness

serious3

none

54/442

(12.2%)

63/459

(13.7%)

RR 0.88 (0.62 to 1.23)

16 fewer per 1000 (from 52 fewer to 32 more)

OO

LOW

IMPORTANT

 

11.4%

14 fewer per 1000 (from 43 fewer to 26 more)

overall infection event rate

7

randomised trials

serious1,2

no serious inconsistency

no serious indirectness

serious3

none

6/723

(0.8%)

7/989

(0.7%)

RR 0.96 (0.36 to 2.56)

0 fewer per 1000 (from 5 fewer to 11 more)

OO

LOW

IMPORTANT

 

0%

-

VAS pain score at 6 months postoperatively (Better indicated by lower values)

2

randomised trials

serious1,2

no serious inconsistency

no serious indirectness

no serious imprecision

none

89

91

-

MD 0.21 lower (0.29 to 0.12 lower)

O

MODERATE

IMPORTANT

cost (Better indicated by lower values)

2

randomised trials

serious1,2

serious4

no serious indirectness

no serious imprecision

none

88

88

-

MD 3.23 lower (4.26 to 2.19 lower)

OO

LOW

IMPORTANT

recurrence rate

9

randomised trials

serious1,2

no serious inconsistency

no serious indirectness

serious3

none

4/797

(0.5%)

8/1082

(0.74%)

RR 0.75 (0.28 to 1.99)

2 fewer per 1000 (from 5 fewer to 7 more)

OO

LOW

CRITICAL

 

0%

-

  1. CI: Confdence interval; GRADE: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; MD: Mean diference; RR: Risk ratio
  2. 1 Specific randomization methods were not described
  3. 2 Lack of allocation concealment and lack of blinding
  4. 3 Wide confdence interval
  5. 4 I2>50%