In order to follow GRADE methodology, the full evidence profile tables should be included (with footnotes), per comparison, including all the critical and important outcomes. If no evidence for critical outcomes were identified, a row in the table could be included with a comment that no data were found. Two examples of how an evidence profile table may be formatted are shown below in Table 23 and Table 24 (choose the most appropriate and amend as required). These data are condensed into a of findings’ table, to be included in the main body of the report. ‘Summary Table Evidence profile table example 1 for intervention compared to comparator for population Outcome No. of studies Risk of Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Other No. of patients No. of Relative Absolute Quality Importance (units, and study bias considerations in intervention patients in effect effect design (e.g. arm comparator (95%CI) (95%CI) publication arm bias) e.g. Outcome 1 (6 months) Outcome 1 (12 months) Outcome 2 Table Evidence profile table example 2 for intervention compared to comparator for population Outcome No. of Risk of Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Other Quality Study events Relative Anticipated Anticipated (units, participants, bias considerations events rates (%) effect absolute absolute No. of studies (e.g. rates (%) Risk with (95%CI) risk with risk with intervention comparator intervention
In order to follow GRADE methodology, the full evidence profile tables should be included (with footnotes), per comparison, including all the critical and important outcomes. If no evidence for critical outcomes were identified, a row in the table could be included with a comment that no data were found. Two examples of how an evidence profile table may be formatted are shown below in Table 23 and Table 24 (choose the most appropriate and amend as required). These data are condensed into a ‘Summary of findings’ table, to be included in the main body of the report. Table Evidence profile table example 1 for intervention compared to comparator for population Outcome (units, No. of studies and study design Risk of bias Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Other considerations (e.g. publication bias) No. of patients in intervention arm No. of patients in comparator arm Relative effect (95%CI) Absolute effect (95%CI) Quality Importance e.g. Outcome 1 (6 months) Outcome 1 (12 months) Outcome 2 Table Evidence profile table example 2 for intervention compared to comparator for population Outcome (units, No. of participants, No. of studies Risk of bias Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Other considerations (e.g. Quality Study events rates (%) events rates (%) Risk with intervention Relative effect (95%CI) Anticipated absolute risk with comparator Anticipated absolute risk with intervention
MSAC%20SBA%20or%20CA%20Assessment%20Report%20Template%20-Therapeutic.docx