Peritoneal Dialysis Guidelines 2019 Part 2: Main Text (Position paper of the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy)

Table 6 Evidence profile: SR3.1. Comparison of mupirocin ointment with a control treatment

Certainty assessment							Incidence rate		Effect		Certainty	Importance
No. of studies	Study design	Bias risk	Inconsistency	Indirectness	Inaccuracy	Other	Mupirocin ointment	Control	Relative [95% CI]	Absolute (95% CI)	Certainty	Importance
Peritonitis
3	RCT	Serious ^a	Not serious	Not serious	Serious ^b	None	37/175 patient-years	44/148 patient-years	0.78 [0.50–1.21]	6.5 event decrease per 100 patients/year (14.9 decrease to 6.2 increase)	⨁⨁◯◯ Low	Critical
Technical survival
3	RCT	Serious ^a	Not serious	Not serious	Serious ^{b, c}	None	4/175 patient-years	3/148 patient-years	1.35 [0.25–7.21]	0.7 event increase per 100 patients/year (1.5 decrease to 12.6 increase)	⨁⨁◯◯ Low	Critical
Exit site tunnel infection
3	RCT	Serious ^a	Serious ^d	Not serious	Serious ^b	None	14/175 patient-years	41/148 patient-years	0.36 [0.13–1.05]	17.7 event decrease per 100 patients/year (24.1 decrease to 1.4 increase)	⨁◯◯◯ Very low	Critical
Complications (including drug adverse effects/safety issues/hospital stay period)—not reported
-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

CI, confidence interval; RR, risk ratio
^aHigh-risk percentage is large
^bDue to a 1% difference, it appears that the presence or absence of the choice of intervention differs, and we determined that the 95% CI straddles the threshold value
^cThe risk difference is − 0.01 (− 0.05, 0.03), and we judged that in this case, there is no need to lower the grade by two levels
^dI² (degree of inter-study variance) was 72%, meaning that the directionality of effects differs between studies (overlapped with part of the 95% confidence interval)

ISSN: 2059-1381