somewordstoolate/Q2CRBench-3 huggingface dataset:
Guideline: 2024 KDIGO CKD
Clinical question: What is the effect of aspirin compared with placebo in terms of the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and safety among people with CKD?
Population: Adults and/or children with CKD at risk for CVD (i.e., people must not have established CVD)
Intervention: Aspirin
Comparator: Placebo
Outcome: Minor bleeding (follow-up: range 3.8 years to 5.4 years)
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: SERIOUS
rationales: There were some concerns with risk of bias because 2 studies were post hoc subgroup analyses and the other study did not blind patients nor carers.
Inconsistency: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: SERIOUS
rationales: Not enough information is reported to assess precision.
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: LOW
No of participants: Aspirin: -/2079
Placebo: -/2098
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): HR 2.25 (1.22 to 4.14)()
Absolute Effect (95% CI): -- per 1,000 (from -- to --)()
Guideline: 2024 KDIGO CKD
Clinical question: What are the effects of angiography or coronary revascularization compared with medical treatment among people with CKD and ischemic heart disease in terms of mortality, CVD events, kidney failure, and acute kidney injury (AKI)?
Population: Adults and/or children with CKD and ischemic heart disease
Intervention: Angiography or coronary revascularization
Comparator: Medical treatment
Outcome: All-cause mortality (follow-up: range 2 years to 10 years)
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: SERIOUS
rationales: There were at least some concerns with the risk of bias for all trials. While it is not possible to blind patients/carers, not all of the trials stated that outcome assessors were blinded (Johnston 2006). Many patients needed to cross-over to the other treatment arm (Hastings 2012, Sedlis 2009), but this information was not always reported in the trials (Johnston 2006). Most of the studies were post hoc analyses of trials (Hastings 2012, Lopes 2009, Sedlis 2009). 
Inconsistency: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: SERIOUS
rationales: There were only 280 events among the 2243participants enrolled in the 8 trials. The total number of events is lower than the number needed to reach the optimal information size (i.e., 300).
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: LOW
No of participants: Coronary revascularization: 127/1114 (11.4%)
Optimal medical therapy: 153/1129 (13.6%)
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): RR 0.80 (0.64 to 0.99)()
Absolute Effect (95% CI): 27 fewer per 1,000 (from 49 fewer to 1 fewer)()
Guideline: 2024 KDIGO CKD
Clinical question: What are the effects of angiography or coronary revascularization compared with medical treatment among people with CKD and ischemic heart disease in terms of mortality, CVD events, kidney failure, and acute kidney injury (AKI)?
Population: Adults and/or children with CKD and ischemic heart disease
Intervention: Angiography or coronary revascularization
Comparator: Medical treatment
Outcome: Cardiovascular mortality (follow-up: range 4.6 years to 5.6 years)
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: SERIOUS
rationales: There were at least some concerns with the risk of bias for all trials. Many patients needed to cross-over to the other treatment arm (Hastings 2012, Sedlis 2009). Most of the studies were post hoc analyses of trials (Hastings 2012, Sedlis 2009). 
Inconsistency: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: SERIOUS
rationales: Not enough information is reported to assess precision. The total number of events is likely to be lower than the number needed to reach the optimal information size (i.e., 300).
Other considerations: result: publication bias strongly suspected
rationales: Only 2 of the 5 trials reported on this outcome, even though all the trials assessed mortality and cardiovascular events.
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: VERY LOW
No of participants: Coronary revascularization: -/300
Optimal medical therapy: -/340
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): HR 0.67 (0.37 to 1.20)()
Absolute Effect (95% CI): -- per 1,000 (from -- to --)()
Guideline: 2024 KDIGO CKD
Clinical question: What are the effects of angiography or coronary revascularization compared with medical treatment among people with CKD and ischemic heart disease in terms of mortality, CVD events, kidney failure, and acute kidney injury (AKI)?
Population: Adults and/or children with CKD and ischemic heart disease
Intervention: Angiography or coronary revascularization
Comparator: Medical treatment
Outcome: Composite cardiovascular events (follow-up: range 2 years to 10 years)
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: SERIOUS
rationales: There were at least some concerns with the risk of bias for all trials. While it is not possible to blind patients/carers, not all of the trials stated that outcome assessors were blinded (Johnston 2006). Many patients needed to cross-over to the other treatment arm (Hastings 2012, Sedlis 2009), but this information was not always reported in the trials (Johnston 2006). Most of the studies were post hoc analyses of trials (Hastings 2012, Lopes 2009, Sedlis 2009). 
Inconsistency: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: SERIOUS
rationales: CI crosses 1.
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: LOW
No of participants: Coronary revascularization: -/965
Optimal medical therapy: -/958
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): RR 0.83 (0.67 to 1.02)()
Absolute Effect (95% CI): 0 fewer per 1,000 (from 0 fewer to 0 fewer)()
Guideline: 2024 KDIGO CKD
Clinical question: What are the effects of angiography or coronary revascularization compared with medical treatment among people with CKD and ischemic heart disease in terms of mortality, CVD events, kidney failure, and acute kidney injury (AKI)?
Population: Adults and/or children with CKD and ischemic heart disease
Intervention: Angiography or coronary revascularization
Comparator: Medical treatment
Outcome: Myocardial infarction (follow-up: range 2 years to 10 years)
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: SERIOUS
rationales: There were at least some concerns with the risk of bias for all trials. While it is not possible to blind patients/carers, not all of the trials stated that outcome assessors were blinded (Johnston 2006). Many patients needed to cross-over to the other treatment arm (Hastings 2012, Sedlis 2009), but this information was not always reported in the trials (Johnston 2006). Most of the studies were post hoc analyses of trials (Hastings 2012, Lopes 2009, Sedlis 2009). 
Inconsistency: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: SERIOUS
rationales: We cannot estimate the total number of events that occurred. There were at least 211 events among the 2243 participants enrolled in the 8 trials. The total number of events is lower than the number needed to reach the optimal information size (i.e., 300).
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: LOW
No of participants: Coronary revascularization: -/1114
Optimal medical therapy: -/1129
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): RR 0.84 (0.64 to 1.11)()
Absolute Effect (95% CI): 0 fewer per 1,000 (from 0 fewer to 0 fewer)()
Guideline: 2024 KDIGO CKD
Clinical question: What are the effects of angiography or coronary revascularization compared with medical treatment among people with CKD and ischemic heart disease in terms of mortality, CVD events, kidney failure, and acute kidney injury (AKI)?
Population: Adults and/or children with CKD and ischemic heart disease
Intervention: Angiography or coronary revascularization
Comparator: Medical treatment
Outcome: Heart failure (follow-up: range 3 years to 5.6 years)
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: SERIOUS
rationales: There were at least some concerns with the risk of bias for all trials. Many patients needed to cross-over to the other treatment arm (Hastings 2012, Sedlis 2009). Most of the studies were post hoc analyses of trials (Hastings 2012, Sedlis 2009). 
Inconsistency: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: SERIOUS
rationales: There were only 73 events among the 640 participants enrolled in the 2 trials. The total number of events is lower than the number needed to reach the optimal information size (i.e., 300).
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: LOW
No of participants: Coronary revascularization: 30/300 (10.0%)
Optimal medical therapy: 43/340 (12.6%)
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): RR 0.80 (0.52 to 1.23)()
Absolute Effect (95% CI): 25 fewer per 1,000 (from 61 fewer to 29 more)()
Guideline: 2024 KDIGO CKD
Clinical question: What are the effects of non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) (also known as direct-acting oral anticoagulants [DOACs]) with or without warfarin compared with placebo or warfarin alone among people with CKD and atrial fibrillation in terms of stroke and bleeding risks?
Population: Adults and/or children with CKD and atrial fibrillation
Intervention: NOAC/DOAC (dabigatran, apixaban, edoxaban, rivaroxaban) with warfarin and NOAC/DOAC alone
Comparator: Warfarin, placebo
Outcome: Any stroke (follow-up: range 1.9 years to 2.8 years)
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Inconsistency: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: SERIOUS
rationales: The total number of events among the 6083 participants of the 4 trials was estimated to be less than the number needed to reach the optimal information size (i.e., 300). One study did not report the number of events (Hori 2013).
Other considerations: result: publication bias strongly suspected
rationales: Only some of the 7 studies reported on outcome.
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: LOW
No of participants: NOAC: 133/3067 (4.3%)
Warfarin: 143/3016 (4.7%)
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): HR 0.93 (0.73 to 1.18)()
Absolute Effect (95% CI): 3 fewer per 1,000 (from 13 fewer to 8 more)()
Guideline: 2024 KDIGO CKD
Clinical question: What are the effects of non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) (also known as direct-acting oral anticoagulants [DOACs]) with or without warfarin compared with placebo or warfarin alone among people with CKD and atrial fibrillation in terms of stroke and bleeding risks?
Population: Adults and/or children with CKD and atrial fibrillation
Intervention: NOAC/DOAC (dabigatran, apixaban, edoxaban, rivaroxaban) with warfarin and NOAC/DOAC alone
Comparator: Warfarin, placebo
Outcome: Ischemic stroke (follow-up: range 1.8 years to 2.8 years)
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Inconsistency: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: SERIOUS
rationales: The total number of events among the participants of the 5 trials was estimated to be less than the number needed to reach the optimal information size (i.e., 300). The number of events and the number of participants were not always reported.
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: MODERATE
No of participants: NOAC: NE
Warfarin: NE
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): HR 0.87 (0.69 to 1.10)()
Absolute Effect (95% CI): 1 fewer per 1,000 (from 1 fewer to 1 fewer)()
Guideline: 2024 KDIGO CKD
Clinical question: What are the effects of non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) (also known as direct-acting oral anticoagulants [DOACs]) with or without warfarin compared with placebo or warfarin alone among people with CKD and atrial fibrillation in terms of stroke and bleeding risks?
Population: Adults and/or children with CKD and atrial fibrillation
Intervention: NOAC/DOAC (dabigatran, apixaban, edoxaban, rivaroxaban) with warfarin and NOAC/DOAC alone
Comparator: Warfarin, placebo
Outcome: Hemorrhagic stroke (follow-up: range 1.9 years to 2.8 years)
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Inconsistency: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: SERIOUS
rationales: The total number of events among the 6083 participants of the 4 trials was estimated to be less than the number needed to reach the optimal information size (i.e., 300). One study did not report the number of events (Hori 2013).
Other considerations: result: publication bias strongly suspected
rationales: Only some of the 7 studies reported on outcome.
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: LOW
No of participants: NOAC: 23/2994 (0.8%)
Warfarin: 36/2980 (1.2%)
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): HR 0.62 (0.36 to 1.04)()
Absolute Effect (95% CI): 5 fewer per 1,000 (from 8 fewer to 0 fewer)()
Guideline: 2024 KDIGO CKD
Clinical question: What are the effects of non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) (also known as direct-acting oral anticoagulants [DOACs]) with or without warfarin compared with placebo or warfarin alone among people with CKD and atrial fibrillation in terms of stroke and bleeding risks?
Population: Adults and/or children with CKD and atrial fibrillation
Intervention: NOAC/DOAC (dabigatran, apixaban, edoxaban, rivaroxaban) with warfarin and NOAC/DOAC alone
Comparator: Warfarin, placebo
Outcome: Intracranial hemorrhage (follow-up: range 1.9 years to 2.8 years)
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Inconsistency: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: SERIOUS
rationales: There were only 91 events across the 5945 participants enrolled in the 3 trials. The total number of events is lower than the number needed to reach the optimal information size (i.e., 300).
Other considerations: result: publication bias strongly suspected
rationales: Only some of the 7 studies reported on outcome.
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: LOW
No of participants: NOAC: 32/2981 (1.1%)
Warfarin: 59/2964 (2.0%)
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): HR 0.60 (0.34 to 1.05)()
Absolute Effect (95% CI): 8 fewer per 1,000 (from 13 fewer to 1 more)()
Guideline: 2024 KDIGO CKD
Clinical question: What are the effects of non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) (also known as direct-acting oral anticoagulants [DOACs]) with or without warfarin compared with placebo or warfarin alone among people with CKD and atrial fibrillation in terms of stroke and bleeding risks?
Population: Adults and/or children with CKD and atrial fibrillation
Intervention: NOAC/DOAC (dabigatran, apixaban, edoxaban, rivaroxaban) with warfarin and NOAC/DOAC alone
Comparator: Warfarin, placebo
Outcome: Major bleeding (factor Xa inhibitors) (follow-up: range 6 months to 2.8 years)
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Inconsistency: result: SERIOUS
rationales: There were some concerns with the risk of bias, particularly with the reporting of selected results and the potential for missing data.
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: MODERATE
No of participants: NOAC: NE
Warfarin: NE
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): HR 0.73 (0.58 to 0.92)()
Absolute Effect (95% CI): 1 fewer per 1,000 (from 1 fewer to 1 fewer)()
Guideline: 2024 KDIGO CKD
Clinical question: What are the effects of non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) (also known as direct-acting oral anticoagulants [DOACs]) with or without warfarin compared with placebo or warfarin alone among people with CKD and atrial fibrillation in terms of stroke and bleeding risks?
Population: Adults and/or children with CKD and atrial fibrillation
Intervention: NOAC/DOAC (dabigatran, apixaban, edoxaban, rivaroxaban) with warfarin and NOAC/DOAC alone
Comparator: Warfarin, placebo
Outcome: Major bleeding (factor IIa inhibitors) (follow-up: median 1.8 years)
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: SERIOUS
rationales: There was some statistical heterogeneity in the meta-analysis results (I2 = 50%).
Inconsistency: result: SERIOUS
rationales: Only one study addressed this outcome for this comparison.
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: SERIOUS
rationales: The total number of events among the participants enrolled in the trial is estimated to be less than the number needed to reach the optimal information size (i.e., 300). The number of events and the number of participants were not reported.
Other considerations: result: none
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: VERY LOW
No of participants: NOAC: NE
Warfarin: NE
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): HR 1.11 (0.97 to 1.27)()
Absolute Effect (95% CI): 1 fewer per 1,000 (from 1 fewer to 1 fewer)()
Guideline: 2024 KDIGO CKD
Clinical question: What are the effects of non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) (also known as direct-acting oral anticoagulants [DOACs]) with or without warfarin compared with placebo or warfarin alone among people with CKD and atrial fibrillation in terms of stroke and bleeding risks?
Population: Adults and/or children with CKD and atrial fibrillation
Intervention: NOAC/DOAC (dabigatran, apixaban, edoxaban, rivaroxaban) with warfarin and NOAC/DOAC alone
Comparator: Warfarin, placebo
Outcome: Clinically-relevant non-major bleeding (follow-up: range 1.9 years to 2.5 years)
Importance: CRITICAL

Evidence assessment:
GRADE: Risk of bias: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Inconsistency: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Indirectness: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Imprecision: result: NOT_SERIOUS
Other considerations: result: publication bias strongly suspected
rationales: Only some of the 7 studies reported on outcome.
Study design: Randomized Controlled Trial
Certainty: MODERATE
No of participants: NOAC: 346/1803 (19.2%)
Warfarin: 334/1752 (19.1%)
Effect: Relative Effect (95% CI): HR 1.06 (0.86 to 1.31)()
Absolute Effect (95% CI): 10 more per 1,000 (from 24 fewer to 51 more)()