Skip to main content

Table 3 GRADE quality of evidence

From: The Chinese patent medicine Tongfengding capsule for gout in adults: a systematic review of safety and effectiveness

Tongfengding capsules plus conventional treatment versus conventional treatment for gout in adults

Patient or population: patients with gout in adults

Settings: inpatients or outpatients

Intervention: Tongfengding capsules plus conventional treatment versus conventional treatment

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

Tongfengding capsules plus conventional treatment versus conventional treatment

Total effective rate

Study population

RR 1.21 (1.11–1.33)

307 (4 studies)

⊕  ⊕  ⊕  ⊕

high

Important

760 per 1000

920 per 1000

(844–1000)

Moderate

799 per 1000

967 per 1000

(887–1000)

BUA

 

The mean bua in the intervention groups was

66.05 lower

(81.26 to 50.84 lower)

 

461 (4 studies)

⊕  ⊕  ⊕  ⊕ 

high

Important

Kidney function

 

The mean kidney function in the intervention groups was

0.85 lower

(1.13–0.58 lower)

 

340 (2 studies)

 ⊕  ⊕  ⊕  ⊝ 

moderatea

Important

Inflammatory factors

 

The mean inflammatory factors in the intervention groups was

9.18 lower

(12.7–5.67 lower)

 

780 (2 studies)

⊕  ⊕  ⊕  ⊝ 

moderatea

Important

Related indicators

 

The mean related indicators in the intervention groups was

7.43 lower

(8.46–6.41 lower)

 

360 (1 study)

⊕  ⊕  ⊕  ⊝ 

moderateb

Important

Relapse rate

Study population

RR 0.24 (0.09–0.61)

201 (2 studies)

⊕  ⊕  ⊕  ⊝ 

moderatea

Important

210 per 1000

50 per 1000 (19–128)

Moderate

217 per 1000

52 per 1000 (20–132)

Adverse effects

Study population

RR 0.21 (0.04–0.95)

223 (1 study)

⊕  ⊕  ⊕  ⊝ 

moderateb

Important

70 per 1000

15 per 1000 (3–66)

Moderate

100 per 1000

21 per 1000 (4–95)

Moderate

25 per 1000

8 per 1000 (0–194)

100 per 1000

10 per 1000 (1–199)

Moderate

100 per 1000

10 per 1000 (1–199)

100 per 1000

24 per 1000 (3–209)

Moderate

100 per 1000

24 per 1000 (3–209)

  1. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
  2. High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Handbook description: randomized controlled trial
  3. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Cochrane Handbook description: relegation randomized controlled trial
  4. 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. Cochrane Handbook description: two or more degradation factors of randomized controlled trials
  5. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. Cochrane Handbook description: more than three degradation factors of randomized controlled trials
  6. Reduce the evidence quality factors: methodology defect, included in the research results of the inconsistency, indirect evidence, inexactness, and publication bias
  7. Increase the level of evidence factor: large effect quantity, confounding factors cannot change effect quantity, or the existing concentration–response relationship
  8. CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio
  9. *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)
  10. aOnly two studies included
  11. bOnly one study included
Back to article page

Advances in Rheumatology

ISSN: 2523-3106