somewordstoolate/Q2CRBench-3 huggingface dataset:
Guideline: 2020 EAN Dementia
Clinical question: Should behavioral symptoms in patients with dementia be treated with mild analgesics?
Population: Patients with dementia and behavioral symptoms
Intervention: Treatment with mild analgesics (paracetamol)
Comparator:  No treatment with analgesics 
Outcome: Agitation/aggression
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Inconsistency: result: NOT_APPLICABLE
rationales: Only one study, therefore not possible to assess
Indirectness: result: SERIOUS
rationales: Patients were not included based on having behavioural symptoms. No baseline data related to assessment of behavioural symptoms were reported.
Imprecision: result: VERY_SERIOUS
rationales: to wide CIs, few patients, one study
Publication bias: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Other considerations: result: None
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: VERY LOW
Risk: No treatment (comparator) mean (SD): 0e34e33b: 1.6 (0.5) (Mean score at follow-up on the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory)
Treatment with mild analgesics (intervention) mean (SD): 0e34e33b: 1.6 (0.5) (Mean score at follow-up on the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory)
Effect: Mean difference: 0e34e33b: 0
Guideline: 2020 EAN Dementia
Clinical question: Should behavioral symptoms in patients with dementia be treated with mild analgesics?
Population: Patients with dementia and behavioral symptoms
Intervention: Treatment with mild analgesics (paracetamol)
Comparator:  No treatment with analgesics 
Outcome: Psychotropic treatments
Importance: IMPORTANT

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Inconsistency: result: NOT_APPLICABLE
rationales: Only one study, therefore not possible to assess
Indirectness: result: SERIOUS
rationales: Patients were not included based on having behavioural symptoms. No baseline data related to assessment of behavioural symptoms were reported.
Imprecision: result: VERY_SERIOUS
rationales: to wide CIs, few patients, one study
Publication bias: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Other considerations: result: None
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: VERY LOW
Risk: No treatment (comparator) mean (SD): 0e34e33b: 0.8 (1.91)
Treatment with psychotropic treatments (intervention) mean (SD): 0e34e33b: 0.52 (1.39)
Effect: Mean difference: 0e34e33b: 0.28 fewer (MD) (CI 95% 1 fewer - 0.45 more)
Guideline: 2021 ACR RA
Clinical question: Should patients with RA initiating MTX receive MTX at 15mg or more per week (includes up-titrating to 15mg over the first month) or less than 15mg per week as the initial dose?
Population: Patients with RA initiating MTX
Intervention: MTX < 15mg per week
Comparator: MTX 15mg per week
Outcome: Disease Activity (follow up: 3 months; assessed with: DAS 28-ESR)
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Inconsistency: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: SERIOUS
rationales: Downgraded by one level due to serious imprecision. Small sample size.
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: MODERATE
No of participants: MTX 15 mg/week: 53
<MTX 15mg/week as initial dose: 47
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): -
Absolute Effect (95% CI): MD 0.08 lower (0.41 lower to 0.25 higher)
Abbreviations: CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; MD: Mean difference; HR: Hazard Ratio
Guideline: 2021 ACR RA
Clinical question: Should patients with RA initiating MTX receive MTX at 15mg or more per week (includes up-titrating to 15mg over the first month) or less than 15mg per week as the initial dose?
Population: Patients with RA initiating MTX
Intervention: MTX < 15mg per week
Comparator: MTX 15mg per week
Outcome: Disability (follow up: 3 months; assessed with: HAQ-DI)
Importance: IMPORTANT

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Inconsistency: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: VERY_SERIOUS
rationales: Downgraded by two levels due to very serious imprecision. Confidence interval including both values suggesting benefit and values suggesting no effect. Very small sample size.
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: LOW
No of participants: MTX 15 mg/week: 53
<MTX 15mg/week as initial dose: 47
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): -
Absolute Effect (95% CI): MD 0.11 lower (0.29 lower to 0.07 higher)
Abbreviations: CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; MD: Mean difference; HR: Hazard Ratio
Guideline: 2021 ACR RA
Clinical question: Should patients with RA initiating MTX receive MTX at 15mg or more per week (includes up-titrating to 15mg over the first month) or less than 15mg per week as the initial dose?
Population: Patients with RA initiating MTX
Intervention: MTX < 15mg per week
Comparator: MTX 15mg per week
Outcome: Withdrawal due to lack of efficacy (follow up: 3 months)
Importance: IMPORTANT

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Inconsistency: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: VERY_SERIOUS
rationales: Downgraded by two levels due to very serious imprecision. Confidence interval including both values suggesting benefit and values suggesting harm. Very small sample size and low number of events.
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: LOW
No of participants: MTX 15 mg/week: 0/53 (0.0%) 
<MTX 15mg/week as initial dose: 2/47 (4.3%)
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): RR 0.18 (0.01 to 3.61)
Absolute Effect (95% CI): 35 fewer per 1,000 (from 42 fewer to 111 more)
Abbreviations: CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; MD: Mean difference; HR: Hazard Ratio
Guideline: 2021 ACR RA
Clinical question: Should patients with RA initiating MTX receive MTX at 15mg or more per week (includes up-titrating to 15mg over the first month) or less than 15mg per week as the initial dose?
Population: Patients with RA initiating MTX
Intervention: MTX < 15mg per week
Comparator: MTX 15mg per week
Outcome: Withdrawal due to adverse events (follow up: 3 months)
Importance: IMPORTANT

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Inconsistency: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: VERY_SERIOUS
rationales: Downgraded by two levels due to very serious imprecision. Confidence interval including both values suggesting benefit and values suggesting harm. Very small sample size and low number of events.
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: LOW
No of participants: MTX 15 mg/week: 2/53 (3.8%) 
<MTX 15mg/week as initial dose: 2/47 (4.3%)
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): RR 0.89 (0.13 to 6.05)
Absolute Effect (95% CI): 5 fewer per 1,000 (from 37 fewer to 215 more)
Abbreviations: CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; MD: Mean difference; HR: Hazard Ratio
Guideline: 2021 ACR RA
Clinical question:  Should patients with RA who have not been previously treated with boDMARD and tsDAMRD receive T2T strategies or usual care?
Population: Patients with RA who have not been previously treated with boDMARD and tsDAMRD
Intervention: T2T strategy
Comparator: usual care
Outcome: Remission (follow up: range 6 months to 1.5 years; assessed with: DAS 44 <1.4 and DAS28 ESR <2.6)
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: SERIOUS
rationales: Downgraded by one level due to serious risk of bias. Lack of allocation concealment and lack of blinding.
Inconsistency: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: MODERATE
No of participants: T2T: 88/176 (50.0%)
Usual care: 32/186 (17.2%)
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): RR 2.89 (2.04 to 4.09)
Absolute Effect (95% CI): 325 more per 1,000 (from 179 more to 532 more)
Abbreviations: CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; MD: Mean difference; HR: Hazard Ratio
Guideline: 2021 ACR RA
Clinical question:  Should patients with RA who have not been previously treated with boDMARD and tsDAMRD receive T2T strategies or usual care?
Population: Patients with RA who have not been previously treated with boDMARD and tsDAMRD
Intervention: T2T strategy
Comparator: usual care
Outcome: Disease activity (follow up: range 6 months to 1.5 years; assessed with: ACR 20)
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: SERIOUS
rationales: Downgraded by one level due to serious risk of bias. Lack of allocation concealment and lack of blinding.
Inconsistency: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: SERIOUS
rationales: Downgraded by one level due to serious imprecision. Small sample size.
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: LOW
No of participants: T2T: 69/76 (90.8%)
Usual care: 48/77 (62.3%)
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): RR 1.46 (1.21 to 1.76)
Absolute Effect (95% CI): 287 more per 1,000 (from 131 more to 474 more)
Abbreviations: CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; MD: Mean difference; HR: Hazard Ratio
Guideline: 2021 ACR RA
Clinical question:  Should patients with RA who have not been previously treated with boDMARD and tsDAMRD receive T2T strategies or usual care?
Population: Patients with RA who have not been previously treated with boDMARD and tsDAMRD
Intervention: T2T strategy
Comparator: usual care
Outcome: Disease activity (follow up: range 6 months to 1.5 years; assessed with: ACR 50)
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: SERIOUS
rationales: Downgraded by one level due to serious risk of bias. Lack of allocation concealment and lack of blinding.
Inconsistency: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: SERIOUS
rationales: Downgraded by one level due to serious imprecision. Small sample size.
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: LOW
No of participants: T2T: 62/76 (81.6%)
Usual care: 30/77 (39.0%)
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): RR 2.09 (1.55 to 2.82)
Absolute Effect (95% CI): 425 more per 1,000 (from 214 more to 709 more)
Abbreviations: CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; MD: Mean difference; HR: Hazard Ratio
Guideline: 2021 ACR RA
Clinical question:  Should patients with RA who have not been previously treated with boDMARD and tsDAMRD receive T2T strategies or usual care?
Population: Patients with RA who have not been previously treated with boDMARD and tsDAMRD
Intervention: T2T strategy
Comparator: usual care
Outcome: Disease activity (follow up: range 6 months to 1.5 years; assessed with: ACR 70)
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: SERIOUS
rationales: Downgraded by one level due to serious risk of bias. Lack of allocation concealment and lack of blinding.
Inconsistency: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: SERIOUS
rationales: Downgraded by one level due to serious imprecision. Small sample size.
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: LOW
No of participants: T2T: 54/76 (71.1%)
Usual care: 16/77 (20.8%)
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): RR 3.43 (2.16 to 5.43)
Absolute Effect (95% CI): 505 more per 1,000 (from 241 more to 921 more)
Abbreviations: CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; MD: Mean difference; HR: Hazard Ratio
Guideline: 2021 ACR RA
Clinical question:  Should patients with RA who have not been previously treated with boDMARD and tsDAMRD receive T2T strategies or usual care?
Population: Patients with RA who have not been previously treated with boDMARD and tsDAMRD
Intervention: T2T strategy
Comparator: usual care
Outcome: Disease activity (follow up: range 6 months to 1.5 years; assessed with: DAS 44/DAS28 ESR)
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: SERIOUS
rationales: Downgraded by one level due to serious risk of bias. Lack of allocation concealment and lack of blinding.
Inconsistency: result: VERY_SERIOUS
rationales: Downgraded by two levels due to very serious inconsistency. I2= 96%.
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: VERY LOW
No of participants: T2T: 174
Usual care: 181
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): -
Absolute Effect (95% CI): SMD 0.43 lower (0.65 lower to 0.21 lower)
Abbreviations: CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; MD: Mean difference; HR: Hazard Ratio
Guideline: 2021 ACR RA
Clinical question:  Should patients with RA who have not been previously treated with boDMARD and tsDAMRD receive T2T strategies or usual care?
Population: Patients with RA who have not been previously treated with boDMARD and tsDAMRD
Intervention: T2T strategy
Comparator: usual care
Outcome: Radiographic progression (follow up: range 1 years to 1.5 years; assessed with: modified Sharp score)
Importance: IMPORTANT

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: VERY_SERIOUS
rationales: Downgraded by two levels due to very serious risk of bias. Lack of allocation concealment, lack of blinding, and attrition bias.
Inconsistency: result: SERIOUS
rationales: Downgraded by one level due to serious inconsistency. I2= 78%.
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: VERY LOW
No of participants: T2T: 143
Usual care: 159
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): -
Absolute Effect (95% CI): MD 0.6 lower (1.68 lower to 0.47 higher)
Abbreviations: CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; MD: Mean difference; HR: Hazard Ratio
Guideline: 2021 ACR RA
Clinical question:  Should patients with RA who have not been previously treated with boDMARD and tsDAMRD receive T2T strategies or usual care?
Population: Patients with RA who have not been previously treated with boDMARD and tsDAMRD
Intervention: T2T strategy
Comparator: usual care
Outcome: Disability (follow up: range 1.5 years to 2 years; assessed with: HAQ-DI)
Importance: IMPORTANT

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: VERY_SERIOUS
rationales: Downgraded by two levels due to very serious risk of bias. Lack of allocation concealment, lack of blinding, and attrition bias.
Inconsistency: result: SERIOUS
rationales: Downgraded by one level due to serious inconsistency. I2= 71%.
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: SERIOUS
rationales: Downgraded by one level due to serious imprecision. Confidence interval includes both values suggesting benefit and values suggesting no effect.
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: VERY LOW
No of participants: T2T: 323
Usual care: 328
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): -
Absolute Effect (95% CI): MD 0.13 lower (0.3 lower to 0.05 higher)
Abbreviations: CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; MD: Mean difference; HR: Hazard Ratio
Guideline: 2021 ACR RA
Clinical question:  Should patients with RA who have not been previously treated with boDMARD and tsDAMRD receive T2T strategies or usual care?
Population: Patients with RA who have not been previously treated with boDMARD and tsDAMRD
Intervention: T2T strategy
Comparator: usual care
Outcome: Quality of life (follow up: 1.5 years; assessed with: SF-12 PCS)
Importance: IMPORTANT

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: SERIOUS
rationales: Downgraded by one level due to serious risk of bias. Lack of allocation concealment and lack of blinding.
Inconsistency: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: SERIOUS
rationales: Downgraded by one level due to serious imprecision. Confidence interval includes both values suggesting benefit and values suggesting no effect. Small sample size.
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: LOW
No of participants: T2T: 53
Usual care: 50
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): -
Absolute Effect (95% CI): MD 5.3 higher (0.86 higher to 9.74 higher)
Abbreviations: CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; MD: Mean difference; HR: Hazard Ratio
Guideline: 2021 ACR RA
Clinical question:  Should patients with RA who have not been previously treated with boDMARD and tsDAMRD receive T2T strategies or usual care?
Population: Patients with RA who have not been previously treated with boDMARD and tsDAMRD
Intervention: T2T strategy
Comparator: usual care
Outcome: Quality of life (follow up: 1.5 years; assessed with: SF-12 MCS)
Importance: IMPORTANT

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: SERIOUS
rationales: Downgraded by one level due to serious risk of bias. Lack of allocation concealment and lack of blinding.
Inconsistency: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: SERIOUS
rationales: Downgraded by one level due to serious imprecision. Confidence interval includes both values suggesting benefit and values suggesting no effect. Small sample size.
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: LOW
No of participants: T2T: 53
Usual care: 50
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): -
Absolute Effect (95% CI): MD 4.9 higher (1.69 lower to 11.49 higher)
Abbreviations: CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; MD: Mean difference; HR: Hazard Ratio
Guideline: 2021 ACR RA
Clinical question:  Should patients with RA who have not been previously treated with boDMARD and tsDAMRD receive T2T strategies or usual care?
Population: Patients with RA who have not been previously treated with boDMARD and tsDAMRD
Intervention: T2T strategy
Comparator: usual care
Outcome: Pain (follow up: range 1.5 years to 2 years; assessed with: VAS 0-100)
Importance: IMPORTANT

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: VERY_SERIOUS
rationales: Downgraded by two levels due to very serious risk of bias. Lack of allocation concealment, lack of blinding, and attrition bias.
Inconsistency: result: SERIOUS
rationales: Downgraded by one level due to serious inconsistency. I2= 74%.
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: SERIOUS
rationales: Downgraded by one level due to serious imprecision. Confidence interval includes both values suggesting benefit and values suggesting no effect.
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: VERY LOW
No of participants: T2T: 225
Usual care: 220
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): -
Absolute Effect (95% CI): MD 12.15 lower (17.76 lower to 6.54 lower)
Abbreviations: CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; MD: Mean difference; HR: Hazard Ratio
Guideline: 2021 ACR RA
Clinical question:  Should patients with RA who have not been previously treated with boDMARD and tsDAMRD receive T2T strategies or usual care?
Population: Patients with RA who have not been previously treated with boDMARD and tsDAMRD
Intervention: T2T strategy
Comparator: usual care
Outcome: Withdrawal due to lack of efficacy (follow up: range 1.5 years to 2 years)
Importance: IMPORTANT

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: VERY_SERIOUS
rationales: Downgraded by two levels due to very serious risk of bias. Lack of allocation concealment, lack of blinding, and attrition bias.
Inconsistency: result: SERIOUS
rationales: Downgraded by one level due to serious inconsistency. I2= 75%.
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: VERY_SERIOUS
rationales: Downgraded by two levels due to very serious imprecision. Confidence interval includes both values suggesting benefit and values suggesting harm. Low number of events.
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: VERY LOW
No of participants: T2T: 17/272 (6.3%)
Usual care: 25/279 (9.0%)
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): RR 0.71 (0.39 to 1.29)
Absolute Effect (95% CI): 26 fewer per 1,000 (from 55 fewer to 26 more)
Abbreviations: CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; MD: Mean difference; HR: Hazard Ratio
Guideline: 2021 ACR RA
Clinical question:  Should patients with RA who have not been previously treated with boDMARD and tsDAMRD receive T2T strategies or usual care?
Population: Patients with RA who have not been previously treated with boDMARD and tsDAMRD
Intervention: T2T strategy
Comparator: usual care
Outcome: Withdrawal due to adverse events (follow up: range 6 months to 1.5 years)
Importance: IMPORTANT

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: VERY_SERIOUS
rationales: Downgraded by two levels due to very serious risk of bias. Two studies consisting of 97% of the weight have high risk of bias due to lack of allocation concealment, lack of blinding of outcome assessors, and reporting incomplete outcome data.
Inconsistency: result: NOT_SERIOUS
rationales: I2=55%
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: VERY_SERIOUS
rationales: Downgraded by two levels due to very serious imprecision. Confidence interval includes both values suggesting benefit and values suggesting harm. Low number of events.
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: VERY LOW
No of participants: T2T: 16/326 (4.9%)
Usual care: 19/310 (6.1%)
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): RR 0.86 (0.46 to 1.59)
Absolute Effect (95% CI): 9 fewer per 1,000 (from 33 fewer to 36 more)
Abbreviations: CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; MD: Mean difference; HR: Hazard Ratio
Guideline: 2021 ACR RA
Clinical question:  Should patients with RA who have not been previously treated with boDMARD and tsDAMRD receive T2T strategies or usual care?
Population: Patients with RA who have not been previously treated with boDMARD and tsDAMRD
Intervention: T2T strategy
Comparator: usual care
Outcome: Serious adverse events (follow up: 6 months)
Importance: IMPORTANT

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: SERIOUS
rationales: Downgraded by one level due to serious risk of bias. Lack of blinding.
Inconsistency: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: VERY_SERIOUS
rationales: Downgraded by two levels due to very serious imprecision. Confidence interval includes both values suggesting benefit and values suggesting harm. Low number of events.
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: VERY LOW
No of participants: T2T: 2/21 (9.5%)
Usual care: 1/22 (4.5%)
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): RR 2.10 (0.20 to 21.42)
Absolute Effect (95% CI): 50 more per 1,000 (from 36 fewer to 928 more)
Abbreviations: CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; MD: Mean difference; HR: Hazard Ratio
Guideline: 2021 ACR RA
Clinical question:  Should patients with RA who have not been previously treated with boDMARD and tsDAMRD receive T2T strategies or usual care?
Population: Patients with RA who have not been previously treated with boDMARD and tsDAMRD
Intervention: T2T strategy
Comparator: usual care
Outcome: Cardiovascular disease (follow up: 2 years)
Importance: IMPORTANT

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: VERY_SERIOUS
rationales: Downgraded by two levels due to very serious risk of bias. Lack of allocation concealment, lack of blinding, and attrition bias.
Inconsistency: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: VERY_SERIOUS
rationales: Downgraded by two levels due to very serious imprecision. Very small number of events.
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: VERY LOW
No of participants: T2T: 4/149 (2.7%)
Usual care: 0/140 (0.0%)
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): RR 8.46 (0.46 to 155.72)
Absolute Effect (95% CI): 0 fewer per 1,000 (from 0 fewer to 0 fewer)
Abbreviations: CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; MD: Mean difference; HR: Hazard Ratio