Adjacent segment degeneration or disease after cervical total disc replacement: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Table 4 Preview SoF table of the GRADE for this meta-analysis

TDR compared to ACDF for ASD
Patient or population: patients with ASD Settings: Intervention: TDR Comparison: ACDF
Outcomes	Illustrative comparative risks^a (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	No of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
Outcomes	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk	Relative effect (95% CI)	No of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	ACDF	TDR
ASD Follow-up: 24–84 months	Study population		OR 0.6 (0.49 to 0.73)	2632 (11 studies)	⊕ ⊕ ⊕⊝ moderate
	256 per 1000	171 per 1000 (144 to 201)
	Moderate
GRADE Working group grades of evidence
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.

Abbreviations: CI Confidence interval, OR Odds ratio, GRADE grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation, TDR total disc replacement, ACDF anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, ASD adjacent segment degeneration/disease
^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)

ISSN: 1749-799X