Diosmectite compared with placebo for acute diarrhoea
| Outcomes | No of participants (studies) Follow-up | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Anticipated absolute effects | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Risk with placebo | Risk difference with diosmectite (95% CI) | ||||
| Duration of acute diarrhoea Scale from: 24 to 168. | 2002 (11 studies) 7 days | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW†‡ due to risk of bias, publication bias | N/A | The mean duration of acute diarrhoea in the control groups was 33.4 h to 117.71 h | The mean duration of acute diarrhoea in the intervention groups was 23.39 lower (28.77 to 18.01 lower) |
| Cure rate by 48 h | 286 (4 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW†‡§ due to risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias | OR 13.08 (7.16 to 23.88) | Study population | |
| 184 per 1000 | 563 more per 1000 (from 434 more to 659 more) | ||||
| Cure rate by 72 h | 254 (4 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW†‡§¶ due to risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias | OR 5.28 (2.87 to 9.68) | Study population | |
| 508 per 1000 | 337 more per 1000 (from 240 more to 401 more) | ||||
| Cure rate by day 5 | 254 (4 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW†‡§¶ due to risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision | OR 4.44 (1.66 to 11.84) | Study population | |
| 841 per 1000 | 118 more per 1000 (from 57 more to 143 more) | ||||
| Cure rate by day 7 | 1000 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATE†¶ due to risk of bias | OR 1.74 (1.19 to 2.54) | Study population | |
| 840 per 1000 | 61 more per 1000 (from 22 more to 90 more) | ||||
| Stool output (volume) | 545 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATE§ due to imprecision | N/A | The mean stool output (volume) in the intervention groups was 10.13 lower (24.19 lower to 3.93 higher) | |
| Stool output (frequency) | 196 (3 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATE§,** due to risk of bias, imprecision, large effect | OR 32.33 (14.55 to 71.83) | Study population | |
| 188 per 1000 | 694 more per 1000 (from 583 more to 756 more) | ||||
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.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.
*The basis for the assumed risk (eg, the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group (ie, the event rate in the placebo group for the dichotomous outcomes and the mean placebo group risk for continuous outcomes) and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence.
†Most are open label trials.
‡Not resembling inverted funnel plot.
§Small sample size and large effect size.
¶No consistent effect.
**Large relative effect.
N/A, Not applicable.