Efficacy and Safety of Xinyue Capsule for Coronary Artery Disease after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Table 3

GRADE (quality of evidence) summary.

Outcomes	Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	No. of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Control group	Treatment group
Primary cardiovascular events	Study population		RR 0.42 (0.31 to 0.56)	2,624 (5 studies)	⊕⊕⊕⊝moderate^a
	108 per 1,000	46 per 1,000 (34 to 61)
	Moderate
	193 per 1,000	81 per 1,000(60 to 108)
Cardiac death	Study population		OR 0.47 (0.13 to 1.68)	2,624 (5 studies)	⊕⊕⊕⊝moderate^a
	5 per 1,000	3 per 1,000 (1 to 9)
	Moderate
	3 per 1,000	1 per 1,000 (0 to 5)
Nonfatal myocardial infarction	Study population		OR 0.26 (0.1 to 0.7)	2,624 (5 studies)	⊕⊕⊕⊝moderate^a
	14 per 1,000	4 per 1,000 (1 to 10)
	Moderate
	17 per 1,000	4 per 1,000 (2 to 12)
Revascularization	Study population		OR 0.38 (0.24 to 0.61)	2,424 (3 studies)	⊕⊕⊝⊝low^a, c
	54 per 1,000	21 per 1,000 (14 to 34)
	Moderate
	55 per 1,000	22 per 1,000 (14 to 34)
Heart failure	Study population		OR 0.53 (0.24 to 1.2)	1,570 (4 studies)	⊕⊕⊕⊝moderate^a
	21 per 1,000	11 per 1,000 (5 to 26)
	Moderate
	47 per 1,000	25 per 1,000 (12 to 56)
Stroke	Study population		OR 0.52 (0.23 to 1.2)	2,624 (5 studies)	⊕⊕⊕⊝moderate^a
	11 per 1,000	6 per 1,000 (3 to 14)
	Moderate
	20 per 1,000	11 per 1,000 (5 to 24)
Rehospitalization due to ACS	Study population		OR 0.48 (0.33 to 0.68)	2,424 (3 studies)	⊕⊕⊝⊝low^a, c
	80 per 1,000	40 per 1,000 (28 to 56)
	Moderate
	83 per 1,000	42 per 1,000 (29 to 58)
LVEF	The mean LVEF in the intervention groups was 7.68 higher (6.85 to 8.5 higher)			1,117 (7 studies)	⊕⊕⊝⊝low^a, b
LVEDV	The mean LVEDV in the intervention groups was 4.07 lower (5.61 to 2.54 lower)			974 (5 studies)	⊕⊕⊕⊝moderate^a
LVESV	The mean LVESV in the intervention groups was 3.94 lower (4.94 to 2.93 lower)			974 (5 studies)	⊕⊕⊝⊝low^a, b
IVST	The mean IVST in the intervention groups was 0.09 lower (0.4 lower to 0.22 higher)			269 (3 studies)	⊕⊕⊝⊝low^a, c
LVPWT	The mean LVPWT in the intervention groups was 0.13 lower (0.73 lower to 0.46 higher)			190 (2 studies)	⊕⊕⊝⊝low^a, c
LVEDD	The mean LVEDD in the intervention groups was 3.18 lower (4.16 to 2.21 lower)			169 (2 studies)	⊕⊝⊝⊝very low^a, b, c
NT-pro-BNP	The mean NT-pro-BNP in the intervention groups was 105.61 lower (151.23 to 60 lower)			322 (3 studies)	⊕⊝⊝⊝very low^a, b, c
Quality of life	The mean quality of life in the intervention groups was 0.31 higher (0.19 to 0.43 higher)			1680 (3 studies)	⊕⊝⊝⊝very low^a, b, c

The basis for the assumed risk (e.g., the median control group risk across studies) is provided in the following. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; OR: odds ratio. GRADE working group grades of evidence. High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of the effect. Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of the effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of the effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate. ^aThe random and blind of some studies were not clear. ^bThe interstudy heterogeneity is greater. ^cThe number of studies is small.