Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Contenido relacionado

Ir a:

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Respuestas clínicas Cochrane

Topics

Temas

original image
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1
Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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

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

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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

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

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Dialysis machine separation vs Usual care, Outcome 1 Incidence of HCV infection: 9 months.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Dialysis machine separation vs Usual care, Outcome 1 Incidence of HCV infection: 9 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Dialysis machine separation vs Usual care, Outcome 2 Incidence of HCV infection: 18 months.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Dialysis machine separation vs Usual care, Outcome 2 Incidence of HCV infection: 18 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Dialysis machine separation versus usual care

Should patients with HCV be isolated in haemodialysis units for controlling the transmission of HCV?

Patient or population: patients in haemodialysis
Setting: ambulatory

Intervention: isolation
Comparison: usual care

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No. of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with usual care

Risk with isolation

Incidence of HCV infection (9 months)

Study population

RR 0.34
(0.11 to 1.07)

446 (1)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW

Very low quality of evidence due to high risk of bias and imprecision

47 per 1.000

16 per 1.000
(5 to 50)

Incidence of HCV infection (18 months)

Study population

RR 0.22
(0.05 to 1.02)

281 (1)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW

Very low quality of evidence due to high risk of bias and imprecision

58 per 1.000

13 per 1.000
(3 to 59)

*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).

CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: 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
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Dialysis machine separation versus usual care
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 1. Dialysis machine separation vs Usual care

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Incidence of HCV infection: 9 months Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2 Incidence of HCV infection: 18 months Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Dialysis machine separation vs Usual care
Ir a la tabla de la revisión