Non‐absorbable disaccharides vs placebo or no intervention: Hepatic encephalopathy
Non‐absorbable disaccharides probably leads to lower hepatic encephalopathy compared with placebo/no intervention (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Non‐absorbable disaccharides vs placebo/no intervention Hepatic encephalopathy · prevention and treatment of hepatic encephalopathy in people with cirrhosis Non‐absorbable disaccharides probably leads to lower hepatic encephalopathy compared with placebo/no intervention (moderate certainty). Non‐absorbable disaccharides versus placebo/no intervention and lactulose versus lactitol for the prevention… (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD003044.PUB3, superseded | RR 0.58 [0.5, 0.69] | 22 studies · 1415 participants | Moderate |
Non‐absorbable disaccharides vs placebo/no intervention Hepatic encephalopathy · prevention and treatment of hepatic encephalopathy in people with cirrhosis Non‐absorbable disaccharides probably leads to lower hepatic encephalopathy compared with placebo/no intervention (moderate certainty). Non‐absorbable disaccharides versus placebo/no intervention and lactulose versus lactitol for the prevention… (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.58 [0.5, 0.69] | 22 studies · 1415 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Non‐absorbable disaccharides versus placebo/no intervention and lactulose versus lactitol for the prevention and treatment of hepatic… 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.