Bare metal stent compared with covered stent for restoration of patency in iliac artery occlusion or stenosis

Patient or population: people with iliac artery occlusion or stenosis

Settings: hospital

Intervention: bare metal stent

Comparison: covered stent

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Covered stent

Bare metal stent

Primary unassisted vessel patency failure

[follow‐up]

Study population

RR

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

[value] per 1000

[value] per 1000
([value] to [value])

Primary assisted patency

[follow‐up]

Study population

RR

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

[value] per 1000

[value] per 1000
([value] to [value])

Secondary patency

[follow‐up]

Study population

RR

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

[value] per 1000

[value] per 1000
([value] to [value])

Quality of life parameter

[range of scale or scale description]

[follow‐up]

The mean quality of life parameter ranged across control groups from
[value][measure]

The mean quality of life parameter in the intervention groups was
[value] [lower/higher]
[(value to value lower/higher)]

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

*The basis for the assumed risk is the average risk in the covered stent group (i.e. the number of participants with events divided by total number of participants of the covered stent group included in the meta‐analysis). 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 ratio

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.