Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of findings table

From: Hypertonic saline (HS) for acute bronchiolitis: Systematic review and meta-analysis

  Assumed risk Corresponding risk Relative effect (95 % CI) No of Participants (studies) Quality of the evidence (GRADE)
Outcomes Normal saline (+/− adjunct treatment) or oxygen therapy plus best supportive care Hypertonic saline (+/− adjunct treatment)    
Hypertonic saline versus normal saline alone (days) The mean length of hospital stay ranged across control groups from 1.82 to 6.4 days The mean length of hospital stay ranged across hypertonic saline groups from 1.87 to 4.8 days 0.58 (95 % CI −0.86 to −0.30) days 452 (4 inpatient trials)  higha
Hypertonic saline plus B2 agonist vs normal saline plus B2 agonist (days) The mean length of hospital stay ranged across control groups from 2.66 to 7.4 days The mean length of hospital stay ranged across hypertonic saline groups from 2.25 to 6 days 0.18 (95 % CI −0.36 to 0.01 days) 710 (5 inpatient trials) moderateb
Hypertonic saline plus epinepherine vs normal saline plus epinephrine (days) The mean length of hospital stay ranged across control groups from 1.88 to 5.6 days The mean length of hospital stay ranged across hypertonic saline groups from 1.4 to 4.9 days 0.56 (95 % CI −0.86 to −0.27 days) 470 (5 inpatient trials)  highc
Hypertonic saline alone or plus bronchodilator versus no intervention (days) The mean length of hospital stay for control groups was 3.7 days The mean length of hospital stay in the hypertonic saline group was 3.7 days 0.07 (95 % CI −0.61 to 0.27 days) 290 (1 inpatient trial) moderated
  1. The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. 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)
  2. CI Confidence interval; RR Risk Ratio
  3. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
  4. High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect
  5. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate
  6. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate
  7. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate
  8. aSubstantial heterogeneity; all studies double blinded and generally low risk of bias
  9. bSubstantial heterogeneity; one study had incomplete outcome data and was un-blinded
  10. cNo heterogeneity; one study had incomplete outcome data and one was un-blinded
  11. dSingle study, no blinding