The efficacy and safety of inositol supplementation in preterm infants to prevent retinopathy of prematurity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Table 3 GRADE Summary of Findings of Supplemental Inositol Compared to Placebo for Retinopathy of Prematurity

Outcomes	No. of Cases per 1000 Infants		RR (95% CI)	Participants, No.	Studies No.	Quality of Evidence^b
Outcomes	Assumed Risk of Placebo^a	Corresponding Risk of Supplemental Inositol (95% CI)	RR (95% CI)	Participants, No.	Studies No.	Quality of Evidence^b
Severe ROP	110	54 (19–145)	0.49 (0.18–1.32)	898	5	Low ^{c, d}
Mortality	155	194 (127–294)	1.25 (0.82–1.90)	1177	6	Low ^{c, e}
All stage of ROP	472	463 (411–524)	0.98 (0.87–1.11)	889	4	Moderate ^e
BPD	436	414 (314–545)	0.95 (0.72–1.25)	1099	6	Low ^{c, e}
Suspected or proven NEC	88	75 (51–109)	0.85 (0.58–1.24)	1189	6	Moderate ^e
Surgical NEC	37	28 (9–88)	0.76 (0.24–2.38)	834	3	Moderate ^c
All stage of IVH	392	302 (231–392)	0.77 (0.59–1.00)	429	3	Moderate ^f
Severe IVH (grade III/IV)	174	118 (78.3–180)	0.68 (0.45–1.03)	1179	6	Low ^{c, e}
Late-onset sepsis	194	236 (188–299)	1.22 (0.97–1.54)	1141	5	Low ^{c, f}
Seizure	26	27 (11–66)	1.02 (0.41–2.56)	833	3	High
Hearing impairment	107	146 (93–247)	1.36 (0.87–2.31)	605	3	High

^aThe basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI)
^bThe GRADE Working Group grades of evidence are as follows: high quality (further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect), moderate quality (further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate), low quality (further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate), and very low quality (we are very uncertain about the estimate)
^cHeterogeneity is highly significant between included trials and hard to be explained
^dOne trial has high risk of bias and one has unclear risk of bias
^eTwo trials have high risk of bias and one has unclear risk of bias
^fTwo trials have high risk of bias

ISSN: 1471-2415