with: Median and range) <CI = confidence interval, MTA= microwave thermal ablation, NA = not applicable, OS = overall survival, k = number of studies.> GRADE Working Group grades of evidence (Guyatt et al., 2013) Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect ⨁⨀⨀⨀ This is based on the results of one study with 22patients in one arm and 18 in the other, study reporting quality was low. Measures of variance are not available. The small sample size reduces the reliability of the outcomes. Wei et al (2015) reports on small sample sizes and inherent drawbacks in study design are problematic Measures of variance show wide confidence intervals associated with OS. The small sample size reduces the reliability of the outcomes. Due to inherent limitations in case series evidence. Table Evidence profile table for safety outcomes No. of studies Outcome (units, follow-up, and study Other assessment) design Risk of bias Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision considerations Results Quality Importance Procedure-related mortality MTA Observational serious 1 not serious not serious Not serious none 2/916 (0.22%)2 CRITICAL ⨁⨀⨀⨀ Follow up: range 6 – 30 mths studies (k=20) VERY LOW Assessed with: n/N (%), per patient RFA Observational serious 1 not serious not serious Not serious none 1/1259 (<0.1%) IMPORTANT ⨁⨀⨀⨀ studies (k=17) Follow up: range 10 – 46 mths VERY LOW Assessed with: n/N (%), per patient Radiotherapy Observational serious 3 not serious not serious not serious none There were two cases of IMPORTANT ⨁⨀⨀⨀ studies (k=17) mortality across all included 17 Follow up: range 13 – 82 mths VERY LOW studies.4 Assessed with: number of patients who died Surgery Observational serious 1 not serious not serious not serious none Pfannschmidt et al (2007): IMPORTANT ⨁⨀⨀⨀ studies (k=3) postoperative mortality was reported by Follow up: NA VERY LOW
with: Median and range) <CI = confidence interval, MTA= microwave thermal ablation, NA = not applicable, OS = overall survival, k = number of studies.> GRADE Working Group grades of evidence (Guyatt et al., 2013) ⨁⨀⨀⨀ Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect This is based on the results of one study with 22patients in one arm and 18 in the other, study reporting quality was low. Measures of variance are not available. The small sample size reduces the reliability of the outcomes. Wei et al (2015) reports on small sample sizes and inherent drawbacks in study design are problematic Measures of variance show wide confidence intervals associated with OS. The small sample size reduces the reliability of the outcomes. Due to inherent limitations in case series evidence. Table Evidence profile table for safety outcomes Outcome (units, follow-up, assessment) No. of studies and study design Risk of bias Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Other considerations Results Quality Importance Procedure-related mortality MTA Follow up: range 6 – 30 mths Assessed with: n/N (%), per patient Observational studies (k=20) serious 1 not serious not serious Not serious none 2/916 (0.22%)2 ⨁⨀⨀⨀ VERY LOW CRITICAL RFA Follow up: range 10 – 46 mths Assessed with: n/N (%), per patient Observational studies (k=17) serious 1 not serious not serious Not serious none 1/1259 (<0.1%) ⨁⨀⨀⨀ VERY LOW IMPORTANT Radiotherapy Follow up: range 13 – 82 mths Assessed with: number of patients who died Observational studies (k=17) serious 3 not serious not serious not serious none There were two cases of mortality across all included 17 studies.4 ⨁⨀⨀⨀ VERY LOW IMPORTANT Surgery Follow up: NA Observational studies (k=3) serious 1 not serious not serious not serious none Pfannschmidt et al (2007): postoperative mortality was reported by ⨁⨀⨀⨀ VERY LOW IMPORTANT
1403%20-%20Final%20Contracted%20Assessment%20Report%20(ACCESSIBLE).docx