Open Access
Review
Table 5.
GRADE evidence profile.
| Quality Assessment |
Overall quality of evidence for outcome | Importance of outcome | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of studies | Design | Limitations | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Other considerations | ||
| Postoperative Opioid Use | ||||||||
| 6 | 2 randomized controlled trials, 3 case series; 1 retrospective chart review | Some ROB concern for 1 RCT because no statistical analysis was run due to the small sample size; some ROB concern for the case series due to lacking information regarding participant enrollment and indirect control groups; no serious concerns for chart review | No serious inconsistencies | Some concern because the populations studied differed: RCTs vs. case series vs. retrospective chart review; measure was comparable across study | Small sample size (n) in 4/6 studies | None | Low | Critical |
| Other postoperative analgesic use | ||||||||
| 1 | Randomized controlled trial | Some ROB concerned because no statistical analysis was run due to small sample size | No serious inconsistencies | No serious indirectness concerns | Small sample size (n) | None | Low | Important |
| Pain scores | ||||||||
| 6 | 2 randomized controlled trials, 3 case series; 1 retrospective chart review | Some ROB concern for 1 RCT because no statistical analysis was run due to the small sample size; some ROB concern for the case series due to lacking information regarding participant enrollment and indirect control groups; no serious concerns for chart review | No serious inconsistencies | Some concern because the populations studied differed: RCTs vs. case series vs. retrospective chart review; measure was comparable across study | Small sample size (n) in 4/6 studies | None | Low | Critical |
| Clinical outcomes | ||||||||
| 4 | 1 randomized controlled trial, 2 case series, 1 retrospective chart review | No serious ROB concern for RCT; some ROB concern for the case series due to lacking information regarding participant enrollment and indirect control groups; no serious ROB concern for chart review | No serious inconsistencies | Some concern because the populations studied differed: RCTs vs. case series vs. retrospective chart review; measure was comparable across study | Small sample size (n) in 2/4 studies | None | Low | Critical |
| Functional Outcomes | ||||||||
| 5 | 2 randomized controlled trials, 3 case series; 1 retrospective chart review | Some ROB concern for 1 RCT because no statistical analysis was run due to the small sample size; some ROB concern for the case series due to lacking information regarding participant enrollment and indirect control groups | No serious inconsistencies | Some concern because the populations studied differed: RCTs vs. case series; measure was comparable across study | Small sample size (n) in 4/5 studies | None | Low | Critical |
*Possible answers for overall quality of evidence for outcome: high, moderate, low, very low.
*Possible answers for importance of outcome: critical, important, not important.
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.