Cochrane · systematic review · CD006660
Methods of preventing bacterial sepsis and wound complications after liver transplantation
Gurusamy, KS, Nagendran, M, Davidson, BR · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2014 · Cochrane Library
Hepato-BiliaryAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
10
current version
GRADE rated
10
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 10 · 100%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Intervention compared to control for people undergoing liver transplantation (mortality)
Population: people undergoing liver transplantation.
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Selective bowel decontamination versus inactive control Intervention vs control | RR 0.91 [0.31, 2.72] | 3 studies · 190 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Selective bowel decontamination versus prebiotics with probiotics Intervention vs control | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 63 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Selective bowel decontamination versus prebiotics Intervention vs control | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 64 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Prebiotics with probiotics versus prebiotics Intervention vs control | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 129 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Granulocyte‐colony stimulating factor (G‐CSF) versus placebo Intervention vs control | RR 1.24 [0.62, 2.47] | 1 study · 194 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Intervention compared to control for people undergoing liver transplantation (retransplantation)
Population: people undergoing liver transplantation.
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Selective bowel decontamination versus inactive control Intervention vs control | RR 0.85 [0.26, 2.85] | 2 studies · 132 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Selective bowel decontamination versus prebiotics with probiotics Intervention vs control | RR 2.91 [0.12, 68.81] | 1 study · 63 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Selective bowel decontamination versus prebiotics Intervention vs control | RR 3 [0.13, 71] | 1 study · 64 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Prebiotics with probiotics versus prebiotics Intervention vs control | RR 0.33 [0.01, 7.9] | 2 studies · 129 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Granulocyte‐colony stimulating factor (G‐CSF) versus placebo Intervention vs control | RR 1.13 [0.4, 3.17] | 1 study · 194 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |