Skip to main content

Table 2 Grade of evidence for primary outcomes

From: Early versus late initiation of renal replacement therapy in patients with acute kidney injury-a systematic review & meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Early RRT compared to Late RRT for aki
Outcomes No of participants (studies) Quality of evidence (GRADE) Relative effect (95% CI) Anticipated absolute effects
  Follow up    Risk with Late RRT Risk difference with Early RRT (95% CI)
Overall mortality 1672 (10 studies) Lowa,b due to risk of bias, inconsistency RR 0.93 (0.75 to 1.15) study population
414 per 1000 29 fewer per 1000 (from 104 fewer to 62 more)
Day 30 mortality 1301 (6 studies) Lowa,b due to risk of bias, inconsistency RR 0.85 (0.6 to 1.2) study population
430 per 1000 65 fewer per 1000 (from 172 fewer to 86 more)
Day 60 mortality 1075 (3 studies) Lowa,b due to risk of bias, inconsistency RR (0.64 to 1.27) study population
473 per 1000 47 fewer per 1000 (from 170 fewer to 128 more)
Day 90 mortality 555 (3 studies) Lowa,b due to risk of bias, inconsistency RR (0.49 to 1.64) study population
449 per 1000 45 fewer per 1000 (from 229 fewer to 287 more)
Overall ICU mortality 430 (3 studies) Lowa,b due to risk of bias, inconsistency RR (0.75 to 1.68) study population
350 per 1000 42 fewer per 1000 (from 87 fewer to 238 more)
Overall Hospital mortality 713 (6 studies) Lowa,b due to risk of bias, inconsistency RR (0.7 to 1.68) study population
298 per 1000 24 fewer per 1000 (from 89 fewer to 203 more)
Dialysis dependence at day 90 539 (3 studies) Lowa,b due to risk of bias, inconsistency RR (0.51 to 2.22) study population
54 per 1000 3 more per 1000 (from 27 fewer to 66 more)
  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). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ration; GRADE Working Group of evidence
  2. High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect
  3. Moderate quality: Further research if likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimete
  4. Low quality: Further research if very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimete
  5. Very low quality: We ae very uncertain about the estimate
  6. aHeterogeneity
  7. bThe risk was increased or decreased