Skip to main content

Table 2 GRADE evidence profile. High-intensity statin compared with a standard statin for acute coronary syndrome patients. Patient or population: 26,497 with acute coronary syndrome. Settings: worldwide. Intervention: High-intensity statin. Comparison: Standard statin

From: High-intensity statin therapy yields better outcomes in acute coronary syndrome patients: a meta-analysis involving 26,497 patients

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risksa (95% CI)

Relative effect

Prediction interval

Estimated probability for RR ≥ 1

No of Participants (studies)

Risk of bias

Inconsistency

Indirectness

Impression

Reporting bias

Comments

Quality of the evidence (GRADE)

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

(95% CI)

Standard statin

High-intensity statin

 

MACE

Low risk population

0.77

(0.555, 1.069)

5.50%

26,497

All the studies were RCTS, but some studies were open-labled.

The heterogeneity is relatively low Ic = 40%, Tauc = 0.02

All the studies compared statins with each other, not indirectly

Not seriousb

No

 

104 per 1000

84 per 1000

(0.68 to 0.86)

(16)

moderate

(22 to 617)

   

MI

Medium risk population

0.73

(0.460, 1.158)

7.90%

13,059

All the studies were RCTs. No assessment of publication bias made for this outcome. But some studies were open-labled

The heterogeneity is relatively low Ic = 30%, Tauc = 0.03

All the studies compared statins with each other, not indirectly

Not seriousb

All the included studies had positive results, which may have publication bias

Downgraded by 1 level.

69 per 1000

56 per 1000

(0.59 to 0.90)

(10)

See footnotes.

low

(10 to 71)

    

Total death

Medium risk population

0.81

(0.552, 1.188)

10.80%

9784

All the studies were RCTS, but some studies were open-labled

The heterogeneity is relatively low Ic = 9%, Tauc = 0.01

All the studies compared statins with each other, not indirectly

Not seriousc

No

Downgraded by 1 level.

48 per 1000

39 per 1000

(0.65 to 1.00)

(6)

See footnotes.

low

(21 to 225)

    

Stroke

Medium risk population

0.8

(0.385, 1.663)

20.20%

9878

All the studies were RCTS. But some studies were open-labled

The heterogeneity is relatively low Ic = 18%, Tauc = 0.02

All the studies compared statins with each other, not indirectly

Not seriousc

No

Downgraded by 1 level.

17 per 1000

14 per 1000

(0.56 to 1.14)

(4)

Only 4 studies with event data. Downgraded for imprecision.

See footnotes.

low

(10 to 34)

     

Cardiovascular death

Medium risk population

0.76

(0.545, 1.060)

4.20%

8878

All the studies were RCTS. But some studies were open-labled

The heterogeneity is relatively low Ic = 0%, Tauc = 0.00

All the studies compared statins with each other, not indirectly

Not seriousb

All the included studies had positive results, which may have publication bias

Downgraded by 1 level.

(0.69 to 0.83)

-(5)

Only 5 studies with event data. Downgraded for imprecision.

low

  1. aThe 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. b P < 0.05 for CI, but no significant effect considering the PI;
  3. c no significant effect basing on CI and PI;
  4. CI Confidence interval, PI Prediction interval, RR Risk Ratio;
  5. GRADE Working Group grades of evidenceHigh quality: Further research is very unlikely to change confidence in the effect estimate.Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on confidence in the effect estimate and may change the estimate.Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on confidence in the effect estimate and is likely to change the estimate.Very low quality: The estimate is very uncertain