Summary of findings: Intravenous prostacyclin analogue (iloprost) vs aspirin: Rate of amputation
Summary of findings: Intravenous prostacyclin analogue (iloprost) showed no clear difference in rate of amputation compared with oral aspirin (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary of findings: Intravenous prostacyclin analogue (iloprost) vs oral aspirin Rate of amputation · patients with Buerger's disease Summary of findings: Intravenous prostacyclin analogue (iloprost) showed no clear difference in rate of amputation compared with oral aspirin (moderate certainty). Pharmacological treatment for Buerger's disease (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD011033.PUB2, superseded | RR 0.32 [0.09, 1.15] | 1 study · 95 participants | Moderate |
Summary of findings: Intravenous prostacyclin analogue (iloprost) vs oral aspirin Rate of amputation · patients with Buerger's disease Summary of findings: Intravenous prostacyclin analogue (iloprost) showed no clear difference in rate of amputation compared with oral aspirin (moderate certainty). Pharmacological treatment for Buerger's disease (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD011033.PUB3, superseded | RR 0.32 [0.09, 1.15] | 1 study · 95 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pharmacological treatment for Buerger's disease 2020 · 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.