Quality of Evidence for Statistically Significant Pairwise Comparisons of Central Venous Catheters for Primary Outcomes
| Treatment Comparison . | Direct Evidence . | Indirect Evidence . | Network Evidence . | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RR (95% CI) . | Quality of Evidence . | RR (95% CI) . | Quality of Evidence . | RR (95% CI) . | Quality of Evidence . | |
| Clinically diagnosed sepsis | ||||||
| SIL vs SIC | NA | NA | 0.54 (.29–.99) | Very lowa | 0.54 (.29–.99) | Very low |
| SIL vs NOb | 0.77 (.59–1.00) | Very lowa,c,d | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| SIC vs NOb | 1.47 (.40–2.50) | Very lowa,c,d | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| CRBSI | ||||||
| MNR vs 5FU | NA | NA | 0.42 (.19–.93) | Very lowa | 0.42 (.19–.93) | Very low |
| MNR vs CSS | 0.41 (.14–1.19) | Lowa,c | 0.37 (.18–.79) | Low | 0.38 (.21–.71) | Low |
| MNR vs NO | 0.28 (.14–.55) | High | 0.31 (.10–.99) | Very lowa | 0.29 (.16–.52) | High |
| MNR vs CHX | NA | NA | 0.12 (.03–.55) | Moderate | 0.12 (.03–.55) | Moderate |
| HEP vs CHX | NA | NA | 0.17 (.03–.92) | Lowa | 0.17 (.03–.92) | Low |
| SIL vs CHX | NA | NA | 0.25 (.07–.87) | Lowc | 0.25 (.07–.87) | Low |
| SIL vs NO | 0.56 (.39–.81) | Moderatec | Not estimablee | NA | 0.57 (.38–.86) | Moderate |
| 5FU vs CSSb | 0.92 (.67–1.25) | Lowa,c | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| CSS vs NOb | 0.73 (.57–.94) | Lowa,c | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| CHX vs NOb | 2.37 (.63–8.96) | Moderatea | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| HEP vs NOb | 0.23 (.07–.72) | High | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| CRBSI per 1000 catheter-days | ||||||
| MNR vs CSS | 0.07 (.01–.75)f | High | 0.42 (.12–1.42)f | Very lowa | 0.28 (.09–.87)f | High |
| MNR vs NO | 0.31 (.10–.98)f | Moderatea | 0.23 (.04–1.35)f | Very lowa | 0.28 (.11–.74)f | Moderate |
| CSS vs NOb | 1.20 (.70–2.06)f | Lowa,c | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Treatment Comparison . | Direct Evidence . | Indirect Evidence . | Network Evidence . | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RR (95% CI) . | Quality of Evidence . | RR (95% CI) . | Quality of Evidence . | RR (95% CI) . | Quality of Evidence . | |
| Clinically diagnosed sepsis | ||||||
| SIL vs SIC | NA | NA | 0.54 (.29–.99) | Very lowa | 0.54 (.29–.99) | Very low |
| SIL vs NOb | 0.77 (.59–1.00) | Very lowa,c,d | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| SIC vs NOb | 1.47 (.40–2.50) | Very lowa,c,d | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| CRBSI | ||||||
| MNR vs 5FU | NA | NA | 0.42 (.19–.93) | Very lowa | 0.42 (.19–.93) | Very low |
| MNR vs CSS | 0.41 (.14–1.19) | Lowa,c | 0.37 (.18–.79) | Low | 0.38 (.21–.71) | Low |
| MNR vs NO | 0.28 (.14–.55) | High | 0.31 (.10–.99) | Very lowa | 0.29 (.16–.52) | High |
| MNR vs CHX | NA | NA | 0.12 (.03–.55) | Moderate | 0.12 (.03–.55) | Moderate |
| HEP vs CHX | NA | NA | 0.17 (.03–.92) | Lowa | 0.17 (.03–.92) | Low |
| SIL vs CHX | NA | NA | 0.25 (.07–.87) | Lowc | 0.25 (.07–.87) | Low |
| SIL vs NO | 0.56 (.39–.81) | Moderatec | Not estimablee | NA | 0.57 (.38–.86) | Moderate |
| 5FU vs CSSb | 0.92 (.67–1.25) | Lowa,c | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| CSS vs NOb | 0.73 (.57–.94) | Lowa,c | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| CHX vs NOb | 2.37 (.63–8.96) | Moderatea | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| HEP vs NOb | 0.23 (.07–.72) | High | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| CRBSI per 1000 catheter-days | ||||||
| MNR vs CSS | 0.07 (.01–.75)f | High | 0.42 (.12–1.42)f | Very lowa | 0.28 (.09–.87)f | High |
| MNR vs NO | 0.31 (.10–.98)f | Moderatea | 0.23 (.04–1.35)f | Very lowa | 0.28 (.11–.74)f | Moderate |
| CSS vs NOb | 1.20 (.70–2.06)f | Lowa,c | NA | NA | NA | NA |
Abbreviations: CHX, chlorhexidine; CI, confidence interval; CRBSI, catheter-related bloodstream infection; CSS, chlorhexidine-silver sulfadiazine; 5FU, 5-fluorouracil; HEP, heparin; MNR, minocycline-rifampicin; NA, not applicable; NO, no impregnation; RR, risk ratio; SIC, silver-impregnated cuff; SIL, silver.
aImprecision (wide 95% CI, include or are close to null effect).
bPairwise comparison of a first-order loop where quality of evidence for direct estimate was assessed to determine the initial rating for specific indirect evidence.
cRisk of bias (blinding).
dPublication bias.
eCannot be estimated because the intervention was not connected in a loop in the evidence network.
fRate ratio.
Quality of Evidence for Statistically Significant Pairwise Comparisons of Central Venous Catheters for Primary Outcomes
| Treatment Comparison . | Direct Evidence . | Indirect Evidence . | Network Evidence . | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RR (95% CI) . | Quality of Evidence . | RR (95% CI) . | Quality of Evidence . | RR (95% CI) . | Quality of Evidence . | |
| Clinically diagnosed sepsis | ||||||
| SIL vs SIC | NA | NA | 0.54 (.29–.99) | Very lowa | 0.54 (.29–.99) | Very low |
| SIL vs NOb | 0.77 (.59–1.00) | Very lowa,c,d | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| SIC vs NOb | 1.47 (.40–2.50) | Very lowa,c,d | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| CRBSI | ||||||
| MNR vs 5FU | NA | NA | 0.42 (.19–.93) | Very lowa | 0.42 (.19–.93) | Very low |
| MNR vs CSS | 0.41 (.14–1.19) | Lowa,c | 0.37 (.18–.79) | Low | 0.38 (.21–.71) | Low |
| MNR vs NO | 0.28 (.14–.55) | High | 0.31 (.10–.99) | Very lowa | 0.29 (.16–.52) | High |
| MNR vs CHX | NA | NA | 0.12 (.03–.55) | Moderate | 0.12 (.03–.55) | Moderate |
| HEP vs CHX | NA | NA | 0.17 (.03–.92) | Lowa | 0.17 (.03–.92) | Low |
| SIL vs CHX | NA | NA | 0.25 (.07–.87) | Lowc | 0.25 (.07–.87) | Low |
| SIL vs NO | 0.56 (.39–.81) | Moderatec | Not estimablee | NA | 0.57 (.38–.86) | Moderate |
| 5FU vs CSSb | 0.92 (.67–1.25) | Lowa,c | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| CSS vs NOb | 0.73 (.57–.94) | Lowa,c | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| CHX vs NOb | 2.37 (.63–8.96) | Moderatea | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| HEP vs NOb | 0.23 (.07–.72) | High | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| CRBSI per 1000 catheter-days | ||||||
| MNR vs CSS | 0.07 (.01–.75)f | High | 0.42 (.12–1.42)f | Very lowa | 0.28 (.09–.87)f | High |
| MNR vs NO | 0.31 (.10–.98)f | Moderatea | 0.23 (.04–1.35)f | Very lowa | 0.28 (.11–.74)f | Moderate |
| CSS vs NOb | 1.20 (.70–2.06)f | Lowa,c | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Treatment Comparison . | Direct Evidence . | Indirect Evidence . | Network Evidence . | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RR (95% CI) . | Quality of Evidence . | RR (95% CI) . | Quality of Evidence . | RR (95% CI) . | Quality of Evidence . | |
| Clinically diagnosed sepsis | ||||||
| SIL vs SIC | NA | NA | 0.54 (.29–.99) | Very lowa | 0.54 (.29–.99) | Very low |
| SIL vs NOb | 0.77 (.59–1.00) | Very lowa,c,d | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| SIC vs NOb | 1.47 (.40–2.50) | Very lowa,c,d | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| CRBSI | ||||||
| MNR vs 5FU | NA | NA | 0.42 (.19–.93) | Very lowa | 0.42 (.19–.93) | Very low |
| MNR vs CSS | 0.41 (.14–1.19) | Lowa,c | 0.37 (.18–.79) | Low | 0.38 (.21–.71) | Low |
| MNR vs NO | 0.28 (.14–.55) | High | 0.31 (.10–.99) | Very lowa | 0.29 (.16–.52) | High |
| MNR vs CHX | NA | NA | 0.12 (.03–.55) | Moderate | 0.12 (.03–.55) | Moderate |
| HEP vs CHX | NA | NA | 0.17 (.03–.92) | Lowa | 0.17 (.03–.92) | Low |
| SIL vs CHX | NA | NA | 0.25 (.07–.87) | Lowc | 0.25 (.07–.87) | Low |
| SIL vs NO | 0.56 (.39–.81) | Moderatec | Not estimablee | NA | 0.57 (.38–.86) | Moderate |
| 5FU vs CSSb | 0.92 (.67–1.25) | Lowa,c | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| CSS vs NOb | 0.73 (.57–.94) | Lowa,c | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| CHX vs NOb | 2.37 (.63–8.96) | Moderatea | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| HEP vs NOb | 0.23 (.07–.72) | High | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| CRBSI per 1000 catheter-days | ||||||
| MNR vs CSS | 0.07 (.01–.75)f | High | 0.42 (.12–1.42)f | Very lowa | 0.28 (.09–.87)f | High |
| MNR vs NO | 0.31 (.10–.98)f | Moderatea | 0.23 (.04–1.35)f | Very lowa | 0.28 (.11–.74)f | Moderate |
| CSS vs NOb | 1.20 (.70–2.06)f | Lowa,c | NA | NA | NA | NA |
Abbreviations: CHX, chlorhexidine; CI, confidence interval; CRBSI, catheter-related bloodstream infection; CSS, chlorhexidine-silver sulfadiazine; 5FU, 5-fluorouracil; HEP, heparin; MNR, minocycline-rifampicin; NA, not applicable; NO, no impregnation; RR, risk ratio; SIC, silver-impregnated cuff; SIL, silver.
aImprecision (wide 95% CI, include or are close to null effect).
bPairwise comparison of a first-order loop where quality of evidence for direct estimate was assessed to determine the initial rating for specific indirect evidence.
cRisk of bias (blinding).
dPublication bias.
eCannot be estimated because the intervention was not connected in a loop in the evidence network.
fRate ratio.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
View Article Abstract & Purchase OptionsFor full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
