Skip to main content
Fig. 4 | Systematic Reviews

Fig. 4

From: A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing azacitidine and decitabine for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome

Fig. 4

Forest plot represents the direct and indirect comparison relative risks and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI; horizontal lines) of death, complete and partial responses, and hematologic parameters for azacitidine group compared to the best supportive care group. Comparisons are direct except azacitidine vs decitabine. BSC, best supportive care; K, total number of RCTs; N, total number of patients. *Certainty: certainty in evidence (also called quality of evidence). **Rated down for imprecision (confidence intervals that include appreciable benefits and harms) and methodological limitation (unclear risk of bias). ***Rated down due to imprecision (small number of events, 14 patients achieving complete response in BSC arm in one trial) and rated down for methodological limitation (unclear risk of bias). †Rated down due to methodological limitation (unclear risk of bias). It is also plausible to rate down for some imprecision due to the overall small sample size

Back to article page