Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Intervenciones para las sobredosis de paracetamol (acetaminofeno)

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003328.pub3Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 23 febrero 2018see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Hepatobiliar

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2018 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Angela L Chiew

    Emergency Department and Clinical Toxicology Unit, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, Australia

    Department of Pharmacology, University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia

  • Christian Gluud

    Cochrane Hepato‐Biliary Group, Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Department 7812, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark

  • Jesper Brok

    Paediatric Department 4072, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark

  • Nick A Buckley

    Correspondencia a: Department of Pharmacology, University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia

    [email protected]

Contributions of authors

AC: designed, drafted, and revised the protocol; performed the searches; selected trials and studies; extracted data; rated studies; and drafted and revised the review.
CG: revised the protocol, conducted the Trial Sequential Analyses, and revised the review.
JB: selected the trial Nicholas Buckley was involved in, assessed risks of bias, extracted data, and revised the review.
NB: extracted data, rated studies, and revised the protocol and the review.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Copenhagen Trial Unit, Denmark.

External sources

  • The 1991 Pharmacy Foundation, Denmark.

  • Copenhagen Hospital Corporation's Medical Research Council's Grant on Getting Research into Practice (GRIP), Denmark.

  • Danish Medical Research Council's Grant on Getting Research into Practice (GRIP), Denmark.

  • Copenhagen Hospital Corporation's Medical Research Council, Denmark.

Declarations of interest

AC: none known.
CG: none known.
JB: none known.
NB: none known.

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to Dimitrinka Nikolova and Sarah Klingenberg for their helpful assistance. We would like to acknowledge Dr Omid Khakhouie for translating one of the trials into English.

Cochrane Review Group funding acknowledgement: the Danish State is the largest single funder of The Cochrane Hepato‐Biliary Group through its investment in The Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark. Disclaimer: the views and opinions expressed in this review are those of the review authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Danish State or The Copenhagen Trial Unit.

Peer reviewers: Goran Poropat, Croatia; Goran Hauser, Croatia.
Contact editors: Vanja Giljaca, UK; Marsha Morgan, UK.
Sign‐off editor: Luit Penninga, Denmark.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2018 Feb 23

Interventions for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose

Review

Angela L Chiew, Christian Gluud, Jesper Brok, Nick A Buckley

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003328.pub3

2006 Apr 19

Interventions for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose

Review

Jesper Brok, Nick Buckley, Christian Gluud

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003328.pub2

2002 Jul 22

Interventions for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdoses

Review

Jesper Brok, Nick Buckley, Christian Gluud

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003328

Keywords

MeSH

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

Flow chart: search strategy and results.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Flow chart: search strategy and results.

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Trial Sequential Analysis of cysteamine versus control on hepatotoxicity defined as aspartate aminotransferase (AST) above 1000 IU/L. The diversity‐adjusted required information size (DARIS) was 982 participants based on a proportion of 53% with the outcome in the control group (Pc); a risk reduction of 20%; an alpha (a) of 2.5%; a beta (b) of 20% (equivalent to a power of 80%); and an assumed diversity of 20%. As demonstrated the trial sequential monitoring boundaries for benefit, harm, or futility were crossed by the cumulative Z value.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Trial Sequential Analysis of cysteamine versus control on hepatotoxicity defined as aspartate aminotransferase (AST) above 1000 IU/L. The diversity‐adjusted required information size (DARIS) was 982 participants based on a proportion of 53% with the outcome in the control group (Pc); a risk reduction of 20%; an alpha (a) of 2.5%; a beta (b) of 20% (equivalent to a power of 80%); and an assumed diversity of 20%. As demonstrated the trial sequential monitoring boundaries for benefit, harm, or futility were crossed by the cumulative Z value.

Trial Sequential Analysis of acetylcysteine versus placebo on mortality. The diversity‐adjusted required information size (DARIS) is 375 participants based on a proportion of 80% with the outcome in the control group (Pc); a risk reduction of 20% (Peto OR: POR); an alpha (a) of 2.5%; a beta (b) of 20% (equivalent to a power of 80%); and an assumed diversity of 20%. As demonstrated the trial sequential monitoring boundaries for benefit, harm, or futility were crossed by the cumulative Z value.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 5

Trial Sequential Analysis of acetylcysteine versus placebo on mortality. The diversity‐adjusted required information size (DARIS) is 375 participants based on a proportion of 80% with the outcome in the control group (Pc); a risk reduction of 20% (Peto OR: POR); an alpha (a) of 2.5%; a beta (b) of 20% (equivalent to a power of 80%); and an assumed diversity of 20%. As demonstrated the trial sequential monitoring boundaries for benefit, harm, or futility were crossed by the cumulative Z value.

Trial Sequential Analysis of 15‐min infusion of acetylcysteine versus 60‐min infusion of acetylcysteine on any adverse event. The diversity‐adjusted required information size (DARIS) is 820 participants based on a proportion of 60% with the outcome in the control group (Pc); a risk reduction of 20%; an alpha (a) of 2.5%; a beta (b) of 20% (equivalent to a power of 80%); and an assumed diversity of 20%. As demonstrated the trial sequential monitoring boundaries for harm, benefit, or futility were crossed by the cumulative Z value.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 6

Trial Sequential Analysis of 15‐min infusion of acetylcysteine versus 60‐min infusion of acetylcysteine on any adverse event. The diversity‐adjusted required information size (DARIS) is 820 participants based on a proportion of 60% with the outcome in the control group (Pc); a risk reduction of 20%; an alpha (a) of 2.5%; a beta (b) of 20% (equivalent to a power of 80%); and an assumed diversity of 20%. As demonstrated the trial sequential monitoring boundaries for harm, benefit, or futility were crossed by the cumulative Z value.

Comparison 1 Methionine versus no intervention, Outcome 1 Mortality.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Methionine versus no intervention, Outcome 1 Mortality.

Comparison 1 Methionine versus no intervention, Outcome 2 Hepatotoxicity (aspartate aminotransferase > 1000 IU/L).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Methionine versus no intervention, Outcome 2 Hepatotoxicity (aspartate aminotransferase > 1000 IU/L).

Comparison 2 Cysteamine versus no intervention, Outcome 1 Mortality.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Cysteamine versus no intervention, Outcome 1 Mortality.

Comparison 2 Cysteamine versus no intervention, Outcome 2 Hepatotoxicity (aspartate aminotransferase > 1000 IU/L).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Cysteamine versus no intervention, Outcome 2 Hepatotoxicity (aspartate aminotransferase > 1000 IU/L).

Comparison 3 Cysteamine versus methionine, Outcome 1 Mortality.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Cysteamine versus methionine, Outcome 1 Mortality.

Comparison 3 Cysteamine versus methionine, Outcome 2 Hepatotoxicity (aspartate aminotransferase > 1000 IU/L).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Cysteamine versus methionine, Outcome 2 Hepatotoxicity (aspartate aminotransferase > 1000 IU/L).

Comparison 4 Cysteamine versus dimercaprol, Outcome 1 Mortality.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Cysteamine versus dimercaprol, Outcome 1 Mortality.

Comparison 4 Cysteamine versus dimercaprol, Outcome 2 Maximum alanine aminotransferase (IU/L).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Cysteamine versus dimercaprol, Outcome 2 Maximum alanine aminotransferase (IU/L).

Comparison 5 Intravenous acetylcysteine versus 'placebo' in people with fulminant hepatic failure, Outcome 1 Mortality.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Intravenous acetylcysteine versus 'placebo' in people with fulminant hepatic failure, Outcome 1 Mortality.

Comparison 6 Initial dose over 60 minutes versus 15 minutes of intravenous acetylcysteine, Outcome 1 Mortality.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 Initial dose over 60 minutes versus 15 minutes of intravenous acetylcysteine, Outcome 1 Mortality.

Comparison 6 Initial dose over 60 minutes versus 15 minutes of intravenous acetylcysteine, Outcome 2 Hepatotoxicity.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6 Initial dose over 60 minutes versus 15 minutes of intravenous acetylcysteine, Outcome 2 Hepatotoxicity.

Comparison 6 Initial dose over 60 minutes versus 15 minutes of intravenous acetylcysteine, Outcome 3 Any adverse event.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.3

Comparison 6 Initial dose over 60 minutes versus 15 minutes of intravenous acetylcysteine, Outcome 3 Any adverse event.

Comparison 7 12‐hour intravenous acetylcysteine regimen versus 20.5‐hour regimen, Outcome 1 Mortality.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7 12‐hour intravenous acetylcysteine regimen versus 20.5‐hour regimen, Outcome 1 Mortality.

Comparison 7 12‐hour intravenous acetylcysteine regimen versus 20.5‐hour regimen, Outcome 2 Hepatotoxicity.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7 12‐hour intravenous acetylcysteine regimen versus 20.5‐hour regimen, Outcome 2 Hepatotoxicity.

Comparison 7 12‐hour intravenous acetylcysteine regimen versus 20.5‐hour regimen, Outcome 3 Vomiting, retching, or antiemetics from 0 to 2 hour.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.3

Comparison 7 12‐hour intravenous acetylcysteine regimen versus 20.5‐hour regimen, Outcome 3 Vomiting, retching, or antiemetics from 0 to 2 hour.

Comparison 7 12‐hour intravenous acetylcysteine regimen versus 20.5‐hour regimen, Outcome 4 Vomiting, retching, or antiemetics 0 to 12 hour.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.4

Comparison 7 12‐hour intravenous acetylcysteine regimen versus 20.5‐hour regimen, Outcome 4 Vomiting, retching, or antiemetics 0 to 12 hour.

Comparison 7 12‐hour intravenous acetylcysteine regimen versus 20.5‐hour regimen, Outcome 5 Anaphylactoid symptoms (all).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.5

Comparison 7 12‐hour intravenous acetylcysteine regimen versus 20.5‐hour regimen, Outcome 5 Anaphylactoid symptoms (all).

Comparison 8 Charcoal haemoperfusion versus no intervention, Outcome 1 Mortality.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.1

Comparison 8 Charcoal haemoperfusion versus no intervention, Outcome 1 Mortality.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Methionine and supportive treatment compared with supportive treatment for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose

Methionine and supportive treatment compared with supportive treatment (randomised trials) for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose

Patient or population: people with paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose
Settings: UK
Intervention: methionine and supportive treatment
Comparison: supportive 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

Supportive treatment

Methionine and supportive treatment

Mortality

Study population

Peto OR 0.14
(0.00 to 6.82)

26
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very low1,2

The Trial Sequential Analysis‐adjusted CI could not be estimated due to the paucity of data.

77 per 1000

12 per 1000
(0 to 362)

Hepatotoxicity

Study population

OR 0.05
(0.01 to 0.53)

26
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low1,3

615 per 1000

74 per 1000
(16 to 459)

*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; OR: odds ratio; RCT: randomised clinical trial.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
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.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1Downgraded one level for risk of bias (concerns regarding randomisation sequence generation and allocation concealment probably compromised).
2Downgraded two levels because of serious imprecision (due to small sample studied, low number of deaths, and wide confidence intervals).
3Downgraded one level because of imprecision (due to small sample studied).

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Methionine and supportive treatment compared with supportive treatment for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose
Summary of findings 2. Cysteamine compared with no intervention for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose

Cysteamine compared with no intervention (randomised trials) for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose

Patient or population: people with paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose
Settings: Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle, UK
Intervention: cysteamine
Comparison: no intervention

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

No intervention

Cysteamine

Mortality

Study population

Peto OR 0.53
(0.05 to 5.22)

65
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very low1,2

61 per 1000

33 per 1000
(3 to 252)

Hepatotoxicity (aspartate aminotransferase > 1000 IU/L)

Study population

OR 0.09
(0.02 to 0.35)

65
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low1,3

Trial Sequential Analysis‐adjusted CI ranged from 0.00 to 24.0.

545 per 1000

97 per 1000
(23 to 290)

*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; OR: odds ratio; RCT: randomised clinical trial.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
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.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1Downgraded one level because of risk of bias (method of randomisation had potential for bias and allocation concealment not specified).
2Downgraded two levels because of serious imprecision (due to small sample studied, low number of deaths, and confidence intervals are wide).
3Downgraded one level because of imprecision (due to small sample studied).

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 2. Cysteamine compared with no intervention for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose
Summary of findings 3. Cysteamine compared with dimercaprol for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose

Cysteamine compared with dimercaprol (randomised trials) for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose

Patient or population: people with paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose
Settings: UK
Intervention: cysteamine
Comparison: dimercaprol

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Dimercaprol

Cysteamine

Mortality

Study population

Peto OR 0.14
(0.00 to 6.82)

52
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very low1,2

38 per 1000

6 per 1000
(0 to 214)

Mean maximum alanine aminotransferase (IU/L)

The mean maximum alanine aminotransferase (IU/L) in the dimercaprol was 754

The mean maximum alanine aminotransferase (IU/L) in the cysteamine group was 722 (IU/L)

52
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low1,3

Difference ‐32.00 (95% CI ‐512.9 to 448.9). The difference between the 2 groups was not significant.

*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; OR: odds ratio; RCT: randomised clinical trial.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
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.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1Downgraded two levels because of serious imprecision (due to small sample studied, low number of deaths, and confidence intervals wide).
2Downgraded one level because of risk of bias (method of randomisation by envelopes and allocation not concealed).
3Downgraded one level because of imprecision (due to small sample studied).

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 3. Cysteamine compared with dimercaprol for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose
Summary of findings 4. Cysteamine compared with methionine (randomised trials) for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose

Cysteamine compared with methionine (randomised trials) for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose

Patient or population: people with paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose
Settings: Newcastle (Royal Victoria Infirmary) and London (Guy's Hospital)
Intervention: cysteamine
Comparison: methionine

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Methionine

Cysteamine

Mortality

Study population

Not estimable

27
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very low1,2

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Hepatotoxicity (aspartate aminotransferase > 1000 U/L)

Study population

OR 0.92
(0.05 to 16.46)

27
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very low1,3

77 per 1000

71 per 1000
(4 to 578)

*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; OR: odds ratio; RCT: randomised clinical trial.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
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.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1Downgraded one level because of risk of bias (concerns regarding randomisation and allocation concealment not specified).
2Downgraded two levels because of serious imprecision (due to small sample studied and low number of deaths).
3Downgraded two levels because of serious imprecision (due to small sample studied and wide confidence intervals).

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 4. Cysteamine compared with methionine (randomised trials) for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose
Summary of findings 5. Standard intravenous acetylcysteine regimen (20.5 hour) compared with shorter intravenous acetylcysteine regimen (12 hour) for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose

Standard intravenous acetylcysteine regimen (20.5 hours) compared with shorter (12 hours) protocol for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose

Patient or population: people with paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose
Settings: 3 acute clinical units in the UK
Intervention: standard intravenous acetylcysteine regimen (20.25 hours)
Comparison: shorter (12 hours) modified protocol

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Standard intravenous acetylcysteine regimen (20.25 hours)

Shorter (12‐hour protocol)

Mortality

Study population

Not estimable

222
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very low1,2

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Hepatotoxicity

Study population

OR 0.67

(0.11 to 4.08)

202

(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very low1,3

30 per 1000

20 per 1000

(3 to 111)

Vomiting, retching, or antiemetics from 0‐2 hours

Study population

OR 0.30

(0.17 to 0.53)

217
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low1,4

651 per 1000

359 per 1000
(241 to 498)

Vomiting, retching, or antiemetics 0‐12 hours

Study population

OR 0.40

(0.22 to 0.75)

203
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low1,4

784 per 1000

593 per 1000
(444 to 732)

Anaphylactoid symptoms

Study population

OR 0.39

(0.21 to 0.70)

208
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low1,4

750 per 1000

539 per 1000
(387 to 677)

*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; OR: odds ratio; RCT: randomised clinical trial.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
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.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1Downgraded one level because of indirectness (a large number of prospective participants excluded prior to randomisation: 1539 judged suitable for treatment, only 222 randomised).
2Downgraded two levels because of very serious imprecision (due to small sample studied and no deaths).
3Downgraded two levels because of very serious imprecision (due to small sample studied, small numbers who developed hepatotoxicity, and wide confidence intervals).
4Downgraded one level because of imprecision (due to small sample studied).

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 5. Standard intravenous acetylcysteine regimen (20.5 hour) compared with shorter intravenous acetylcysteine regimen (12 hour) for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose
Summary of findings 6. Oral compared with intravenous acetylcysteine for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose

Oral compared with intravenous acetylcysteine for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose

Patient or population: people with paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose
Settings: Baharloo Hospital (Tehran)
Intervention: oral acetylcysteine
Comparison: intravenous acetylcysteine

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Intravenous acetylcysteine

Oral acetylcysteine

Mortality

Study population

Not estimable

66
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very low1,2,3

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Hepatotoxicity

Rates of hepatotoxicity not reported, only mean alanine aminotransferase between the 2 study groups.

Nausea

Study population

OR 2.71
(1.00 to 7.38)

66
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very low1,2,3

333 per 1000

575 per 1000
(333 to 787)

Vomiting

Study population

OR 2.10
(0.62 to 7.12)

66
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very low1,2,3

152 per 1000

273 per 1000
(100 to 560)

*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; OR: odds ratio; RCT: randomised clinical trial.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
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.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1Downgraded one level because of risk of bias (due to randomisation details or concealment allocation were not specified, participants were excluded from IV group if they developed an anaphylactoid reaction unresponsive to decreasing the administration rate. Unclear whether these participants were analysed and should have been included as intention‐to‐treat).
2Downgraded one level because of risk of imprecision (due to small sample studied).
3Downgraded one level because of indirectness (amount of paracetamol ingested mean dose of 160 mg/kg to 170 mg/kg is below the toxic dose that often requires treatment).

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 6. Oral compared with intravenous acetylcysteine for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose
Summary of findings 7. Intravenous acetylcysteine compared with placebo in people with fulminant hepatic failure for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose

Intravenous acetylcysteine compared with placebo in people with fulminant hepatic failure (randomised trials) for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose

Patient or population: people with fulminant hepatic failure secondary to paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose
Settings: Liver Failure Unit, King's College Hospital
Intervention: intravenous acetylcysteine
Comparison: placebo

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Placebo

Intravenous acetylcysteine

Mortality

Study population

Peto OR 0.29
(0.09 to 0.94)

50
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low1,2

Trial Sequential Analysis‐adjusted CI ranged from 0.01 to 15.8.

800 per 1000

537 per 1000
(265 to 790)

*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; OR: odds ratio; RCT: randomised clinical trial.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
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.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1Downgraded one level because of risk of bias (randomisation and allocation concealment unclear).
2Downgraded one level because of imprecision (small sample studied).

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 7. Intravenous acetylcysteine compared with placebo in people with fulminant hepatic failure for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose
Summary of findings 8. Initial infusion rate of intravenous acetylcysteine over 15 minutes compared with 60 minutes for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose

Initial infusion rate of intravenous acetylcysteine over 15 minutes compared with 60 minutes (randomised trials) for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose

Patient or population: people with paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose
Settings: multicentre study conducted in tertiary referral hospitals in Australia
Intervention: initial infusion of acetylcysteine over 15 minutes
Comparison: initial infusion of acetylcysteine over 60 minutes

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Initial infusion over 15 minutes

Initial infusion over 60 minutes

Mortality

Study population

Not estimable

180
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very low1,2

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Hepatotoxicity

Study population

OR 1.34

(0.39 to 4.56)

175
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very low1,3

56 per 1000

74 per 1000
(23 to 213)

Any adverse event

Study population

OR 0.51

(0.27 to 0.96)

180
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low1,4

Trial Sequential Analysis‐adjusted CI ranged from 0.36 to 11.0.

752 per 1000

608 per 1000
(451 to 745)

*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; OR: odds ratio; RCT: randomised clinical trial.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
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.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1Downgraded one level because of risk of bias (possible bias due to method of randomisation via "randomisation slips" in a "closed box," many participants lost to follow‐up, and uneven numbers between the 2 treatment groups with many more participants in the 15‐minute infusion group).
2Downgraded two levels because of serious imprecision (due to small sample studied and no deaths).
3Downgraded two levels because of serious imprecision (due to small sample studied, low rate of hepatotoxicity, and wide confidence intervals).
4Downgraded one level because of imprecision (due to small sample).

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 8. Initial infusion rate of intravenous acetylcysteine over 15 minutes compared with 60 minutes for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose
Summary of findings 9. Oral plus intravenous acetylcysteine compared with intravenous acetylcysteine for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose

Oral and intravenous acetylcysteine compared with intravenous acetylcysteine for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose

Patient or population: people with paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose
Settings: poisoning referral centre in Iran
Intervention: oral and intravenous acetylcysteine
Comparison: intravenous acetylcysteine

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Intravenous acetylcysteine

Oral and intravenous acetylcysteine

Mortality

Study population

Not estimable

40
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very low1,2

Primary outcome for this study was anaphylactoid reaction.

Unable to analyse these results due to large number excluded from one arm.1

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Hepatotoxicity

Not reported.

*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; RCT: randomised clinical trial.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
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.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1Downgraded two levels because of serious risk of bias (randomisation sequence generation and allocation concealment not recorded, and a large number of participants excluded (10 excluded from the 25 randomised)).
2Downgraded two levels because of serious imprecision (due to small sample studied and no deaths).

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 9. Oral plus intravenous acetylcysteine compared with intravenous acetylcysteine for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose
Summary of findings 10. Charcoal haemoperfusion compared with no intervention for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose

Charcoal haemoperfusion compared with no intervention (randomised trials) for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose

Patient or population: people with paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose
Settings: The Liver Unit, King's College Hospital, London UK
Intervention: charcoal haemoperfusion
Comparison: no intervention

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

No intervention

Charcoal haemoperfusion

Mortality

Study population

Peto OR 7.39
(0.15 to 372.38)

16
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very low1,2,3

Note very small numbers in this trial; only 8 in each group.

With only 1 death in the charcoal haemoperfusion arm.

The Trial Sequential Analysis‐adjusted CI could not be calculated.

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

*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; OR: odds ratio; RCT: randomised clinical trial.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
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.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1Downgraded one level because of risk of bias (randomisation sequence generation and allocation concealment not detailed).
2Downgraded two levels because of serious imprecision (due to small sample studied and confidence intervals are very wide).
3Downgraded one level because of risk of indirectness (imbalance between the two groups at baseline).

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 10. Charcoal haemoperfusion compared with no intervention for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose
Comparison 1. Methionine versus no intervention

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mortality Show forest plot

1

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2 Hepatotoxicity (aspartate aminotransferase > 1000 IU/L) Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Methionine versus no intervention
Comparison 2. Cysteamine versus no intervention

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mortality Show forest plot

2

65

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.53 [0.05, 5.22]

2 Hepatotoxicity (aspartate aminotransferase > 1000 IU/L) Show forest plot

2

65

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.09 [0.02, 0.35]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Cysteamine versus no intervention
Comparison 3. Cysteamine versus methionine

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mortality Show forest plot

1

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2 Hepatotoxicity (aspartate aminotransferase > 1000 IU/L) Show forest plot

1

27

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.92 [0.05, 16.46]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. Cysteamine versus methionine
Comparison 4. Cysteamine versus dimercaprol

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mortality Show forest plot

1

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2 Maximum alanine aminotransferase (IU/L) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 4. Cysteamine versus dimercaprol
Comparison 5. Intravenous acetylcysteine versus 'placebo' in people with fulminant hepatic failure

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mortality Show forest plot

1

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 5. Intravenous acetylcysteine versus 'placebo' in people with fulminant hepatic failure
Comparison 6. Initial dose over 60 minutes versus 15 minutes of intravenous acetylcysteine

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mortality Show forest plot

1

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2 Hepatotoxicity Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3 Any adverse event Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 6. Initial dose over 60 minutes versus 15 minutes of intravenous acetylcysteine
Comparison 7. 12‐hour intravenous acetylcysteine regimen versus 20.5‐hour regimen

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mortality Show forest plot

1

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2 Hepatotoxicity Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3 Vomiting, retching, or antiemetics from 0 to 2 hour Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4 Vomiting, retching, or antiemetics 0 to 12 hour Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5 Anaphylactoid symptoms (all) Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 7. 12‐hour intravenous acetylcysteine regimen versus 20.5‐hour regimen
Comparison 8. Charcoal haemoperfusion versus no intervention

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mortality Show forest plot

1

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 8. Charcoal haemoperfusion versus no intervention