Skip to main content

Table 3 Quality of evidence by GRADE

From: Effect of ultrasound-guided lung recruitment to reduce pulmonary atelectasis after non-cardiac surgery under general anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Certainty assessment

№ of patients

Effect

Certainty

Importance

№ of studies

Study design

Risk of bias

Inconsistency

Indirectness

Imprecision

Other considerations

Ultrasound-guided

Control

Relative

(95% CI)

Absolute

(95% CI)

Incidence of atelectasis

 9

Randomized trials

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

None

52/222 (23.4%)

169/221 (76.5%)

RR 0.31

(0.25 to 0.40)

528 fewer per 1000

(from 574 to 459 fewer)

High

Critical

Subgroup analysis of atelectasis by age

 9

Randomized trials

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

None

52/222 (23.4%)

169/221 (76.5%)

RR 0.31

(0.25 to 0.40)

528 fewer per 1000

(from 574 to 459 fewer)

High

Critical

Subgroup analysis of atelectasis by age—age ≥ 18 (adult)

 3

Randomized trials

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

None

25/60 (41.7%)

52/61 (85.2%)

RR 0.49

(0.36 to 0.67)

435 fewer per 1000

(from 546 to 281 fewer)

High

Critical

Subgroup analysis of atelectasis by age—age < 18 (children)

 6

Randomized trials

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

None

27/162 (16.7%)

117/160 (73.1%)

RR 0.23

(0.17 to 0.33)

563 fewer per 1000

(from 607 to 490 fewer)

High

Critical

Subgroup analysis of atelectasis by LRM or Non-LRM used in the control group

 9

Randomized trials

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

None

52/222 (23.4%)

169/221 (76.5%)

RR 0.31

(0.25 to 0.40)

528 fewer per 1000

(from 574 to 459 fewer)

High

Critical

Subgroup analysis of atelectasis by LRM or non-LRM used in the control group-compare to LRM in the control group

 3

Randomized trials

not serious

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

None

14/100 (14.0%)

59/99 (59.6%)

RR 0.24

(0.14 to 0.39)

453 fewer per 1000

(from 513 to 364 fewer)

High

Critical

Subgroup analysis of atelectasis by LRM or non-LRM used in the control group-compare to non-LRM in the control group

 6

Randomized trials

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

None

38/122 (31.1%)

110/122 (90.2%)

RR 0.35

(0.27 to 0.46)

586 fewer per 1,000

(from 658 to 487 fewer)

High

Critical

The application of PEEP after LRM

 9

Randomized trials

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

None

52/222 (23.4%)

169/221 (76.5%)

RR 0.31

(0.25 to 0.40)

528 fewer per 1,000

(from 574 to 459 fewer)

High

Critical

The application of PEEP after LRM-PEEP(ultrasound-guided) = PEEP (control)

 7

Randomized trials

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

None

41/180 (22.8%)

131/180 (72.8%)

RR 0.32

(0.24 to 0.42)

495 fewer per 1000

(from 553 to 422 fewer)

High

Critical

The application of PEEP after LRM-PEEP (ultrasound-guided) > PEEP (control)

 2

Randomized trials

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

None

11/42 (26.2%)

38/41 (92.7%)

RR 0.29

(0.18 to 0.48)

658 fewer per 1000

(from 760 to 482 fewer)

High

Critical

LUS after LRM

 6

Randomized trials

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

None

122

122

-

MD 6.24 lower

(6.9 lower to 5.59 lower)

High

Critical

LUS of each part of the lung after LRM

 2

Randomized trials

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

None

120

123

MD 2.31 lower

(2.69 lower to 1.94 lower)

High

Critical

LUS of each part of the lung after LRM–anterior

 2

Randomised trials

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

None

40

41

MD 2 lower

(2.49 lower to 1.51 lower)

High

Critical

LUS of each part of the lung after LRM–lateral

 2

Randomised trials

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

None

40

41

MD 2.5 lower

(3.2 lower to 1.8 lower)

High

Critical

LUS of each part of the lung after LRM-posterior

 2

Randomized trials

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

None

40

41

MD 3.24 lower

(4.23 lower to 2.24 lower)

High

Critical

Certainty assessment

№ of patients

Effect

Certainty

Importance

  1. CI confidence interval, MD mean difference, RR risk ratio