Skip to main content

Table 2 The quality of evidence

From: Diacerein versus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect (95% CI)

No. of Participants (studies)

Quality of the evidence (GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

NSAIDs

Diacerein

WOMAC

 

The mean WOMAC in the intervention groups was 0.09 standard deviations higher (0.1 lower to 0.28 higher)

 

1429 (8 studies)

\(\oplus \oplus\)OO low1,2,3

SMD 0.09 (−0.1 to 0.28)

VAS

 

The mean vas in the intervention groups was 0.19 standard deviations lower (0.65 lower to 0.27 higher)

 

1367 (8 studies)

\(\oplus \oplus\)OO low1,2,3

SMD −0.19 (−0.65 to 0.27)

Global efficacy judgements by the patients

Study population

OR 1.97 (1.18 to 3.29)

766 (4 studies)

\(\oplus \oplus\)OO low3,4,5

 
 

747 per 1000

853 per 1000 (777 to 907)

    
 

Moderate

    
 

792 per 1000

882 per 1000 (818 to 926)

    

Global efficacy judgements by the investigator

Study population

OR 2.18 (0.99 to 4.81)

766 (4 studies)

\(\oplus \oplus\)OO low2,3,4

 
 

742 per 1000

862 per 1000 (740 to 932)

    
 

Moderate

    
 

783 per 1000

887 per 1000 (781 to 946)

    

Safety

Study population

OR 0.83 (0.57 to 1.21)

1222 (10 studies)

\(\oplus\)OOO very low1,3,5

 
 

290 per 1000

253 per 1000 (189 to 331)

    
 

Moderate

    
 

184 per 1000

158 per 1000 (114 to 214)

    
  1. CI Confidence interval; OR Odds ratio
  2. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
  3. High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect
  4. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate
  5. 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
  6. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate
  7. 1High risk of bias due to the lack of blinding
  8. 2High heterogeneity
  9. 3Wide CI
  10. 4Small sample size
  11. 5Moderate heterogeneity