Skip to main content

Table 1 Summary of findings template

From: Coronary artery bypass surgery plus medical therapy versus medical therapy alone for ischaemic heart disease: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Coronary artery bypass surgery compared with medical therapy alone for ischaemic heart disease

Patient or population: Adult patients with ischaemic heart disease

Settings: Hospital

Intervention: Coronary artery bypass surgery

Comparison: Medical therapy

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks a (95% CI)

Relative effect (95% CI)

No of Participants (studies)

Quality of the evidence (GRADE)

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Medical therapy

Coronary artery bypass surgery

All-cause mortality [follow-up]

Low risk population

RR [value] ([value] to [value])

[value]

([value])

very low

low

moderate

high

[value] per 1000

[value] per 1000

([value] to [value])

Medium risk population

[value] per 1000

[value] per 1000

([value] to [value])

High risk population

[value] per 1000

[value] per 1000

([value] to [value])

Serious adverse events [follow-up]

Low risk population

RR [value] ([value] to [value])

[value]

([value])

very low

low

moderate

high

[value] per 1000

[value] per 1000

([value] to [value])

Medium risk population

[value] per 1000

[value] per 1000

([value] to [value])

High risk population

[value] per 1000

[value] per 1000

([value] to [value])

Quality of life [follow-up]

The mean quality of life rating ranged across control groups from

[value][measure]

The mean quality of life rating in the intervention groups was

[value] [lower/higher]

[(value to value lower/higher)]

 

[value]

([value])

 

Cardiovascular mortality [follow-up]

Low risk population

RR [value] ([value] to [value])

[value]

([value])

very low

low

moderate

high

[value] per 1000

[value] per 1000

([value] to [value])

Medium risk population

[value] per 1000

[value] per 1000

([value] to [value])

High risk population

[value] per 1000

[value] per 1000

([value] to [value])

Myocardial infarction [follow-up]

Low risk population

RR [value] ([value] to [value])

[value]

([value])

very low

low

moderate

high

[value] per 1000

[value] per 1000

([value] to [value])

Medium risk population

[value] per 1000

[value] per 1000

([value] to [value])

High risk population

[value] per 1000

[value] per 1000

([value] to [value])

Angina [follow-up]

The mean angina rating ranged across control groups from

[value][measure]

The mean angina rating in the intervention groups was

[value] [lower/higher]

[(value to value lower/higher)]

 

[value]

([value])

very low

low

moderate

high

Stroke [follow-up]

Low risk population

RR [value] ([value] to [value])

[value]

([value])

very low

low

moderate

high

[value] per 1000

[value] per 1000

([value] to [value])

Medium risk population

[value] per 1000

[value] per 1000

([value] to [value])

High risk population

[value] per 1000

[value] per 1000

([value] to [value])

Non-serious adverse events [follow-up]

Low risk population

RR [value] ([value] to [value])

[value]

([value])

very low

low

moderate

high

[value] per 1000

[value] per 1000

([value] to [value])

Medium risk population

[value] per 1000

[value] per 1000

([value] to [value])

High risk population

[value] per 1000

[value] per 1000

([value] to [value])

  1. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
  2. 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
  3. aThe basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. 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)
  4. CI confidence interval, RR risk ratio; other abbreviations, e.g. OR, etc.