Skip to main content

Table 2 Quality of evidence for primary outcomes

From: Tolvaptan for water retention in heart failure: a systematic review

Reviews

Certainty assessment

P-value

Quality

Outcomes

â„– of participants

â„– of studies

Risk of bias

Inconsistency

Indirectness

Imprecision

Other considerations

Experimental

Control

Yang CJ 2015(CN) [23]

â‘ 

3535

3572

6

seriousa

seriousb

not serious

not serious

none

P < 0.0001

L

Wang CB 2017(CN) [15]

â‘ 

NA

NA

4

seriousa

not serious

not serious

seriousc

none

P = 0.711

L

Wu MY 2019(CN) [16]

â‘ 

2485

2148

8

not serious

not serious

not serious

not serious

none

P < 0.00001

H

②

638

359

8

not serious

not serious

not serious

not serious

none

P < 0.00001

H

Ma G 2018(CN) [17]

â‘ 

51

52

2

seriousa

seriousb

not serious

very seriousc

publication bias strongly suspectedd

P = 0.04

VL

Xiong B 2015(CN) [18]

â‘ 

NA

NA

8

not serious

not serious

not serious

not serious

none

P = 0.000

H

Huang WI 2018(CN) [22]

â‘ 

264

298

5

not serious

not serious

not serious

seriousc

none

P = 0.04

M

②

242

254

4

not serious

not serious

not serious

seriousc

none

P < 0.00001

M

Kinugawa K 2018(JP) [19]

â‘ 

1633

1615

6

seriousa

seriousb

not serious

not serious

none

P = 0.32

L

②

226

228

5

not serious

not serious

not serious

seriousc

none

P < 0.00001

M

Luo XD 2020(CN) [21]

â‘ 

2162

2188

6

not serious

seriousb

not serious

not serious

none

P < 0.00001

M

②

281

282

5

seriousa

not serious

not serious

seriousc

none

P < 0.00001

L

Alskaf.E.E 2016(the UK) [20]

â‘ 

345

346

5

seriousa

not serious

not serious

seriousc

none

P = 0.0001

L

②

94

87

3

seriousa

not serious

not serious

very seriousc

publication bias strongly suspectedd

P = 0.004

VL

  1. â‘ Serum sodium concentration
  2. ②Urine output
  3. H High, M Moderate, L Low, Vl Very low
  4. aThe experimental design had a large bias in random, distributive findings, blinding or incomplete outcome date
  5. bThe confidence interval overlaps less, the heterogeneity test P, and the I2 was larger
  6. cThe confidence interval was not narrow enough, or the sample size was too small
  7. dFunnel graph asymmetry, or fewer studies were included and there may have been greater publication bias