Skip to main content

Table 2 GRADE summary of findings table with all the outcomes

From: Systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of continuous positive airways pressure versus high flow oxygen cannula in acute bronchiolitis

Outcomes

№ of participants

(studies)

Follow-up

Certainty of the evidence

(GRADE)

Relative effect

(95% CI)

Anticipated absolute effects

Risk with HFNC

Risk difference with CPAP

Mechanical Ventilation

541

(5 RCTs)

⨁◯◯◯

Very lowa,b,c

OR 1.18

(0.74 to 1.89)

161 per 1000

24 more per 1000

(37 fewer to 105 more)

Therapeutic failure

541

(5 RCTs)

⨁◯◯◯

Very lowa,c,d,e

OR 0.51

(0.36 to 0.75)

425 per 1000

151 fewer per 1000

(215 fewer to 68 fewer)

Lenght stay in hospital

318

(2 RCTs)

⨁◯◯◯

Very lowa,b,c

-

The mean lenght stay in hospital ranged from 6.7 to 8 SD

MD 0.22 SD lower

(0.91 lower to 0.48 higher)

Adverse events

519

(4 RCTs)

⨁⨁◯◯

Lowa,c,d

OR 4.46

(1.88 to 10.59)

36 per 1000

106 more per 1000

(29 more to 247 more)

  1. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
  2. High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
  3. Moderate certainty: 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
  4. Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
  5. Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect
  6. CI Confidence interval, MD Mean difference, OR Odds ratio
  7. Explanations
  8. *The risk in the intervention group (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)
  9. aStudies had high or unclear risk of selection and performance bias
  10. bInconsistence. According to the confidence interval there are differences in the direction of effect . CPAP can increase or reduce the risk
  11. cImprecise. Due to low sample size, the 95% CI was very wide
  12. dInconsistence. The studies with the largest sample size in the review (Milesi 2017 and Borgi 2021) show a effect of CPAP, while the other 3 show no differences
  13. eIndirectness. In most studies this outcome is has a component of subjectivity because there was an option for individual clinicians to independently decide that participants had failed a particular therapy, in addition to objective markers such as worsening of physiological parameters
Back to article page

BMC Pediatrics

ISSN: 1471-2431

Contact us