Table 4 Clinical relevance and certainty of evidence provided by statistical difference in clinical and pathologic endpoints (dichotomous and numeric) between robotic vs. open pancreaticoduodenectomy.

From: Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy provides better histopathological outcomes as compared to its open counterpart: a meta-analysis

Dichotomous endpoints

RRR

ARR (95%CI)

NNT (95%CI)

95% prediction interval

GRADE certainty of evidence

Postoperative overall morbidity

0.22

0.118 (0.086, 0.149)

9 (7, 12)

0.72, 1.02

Moderate

⊕⊕⊕◯

POPF rate

0.13

0.021 (0.004, 0.038)

47 (26, 267)

0.29, 2.74

Low

⊕⊕◯◯

DGE rate

0.03

0.005 (− 0.017, 0.026)

210 (> 38 to benefit, > 4 to harm)

0.51, 1.87

Very low

⊕◯◯◯

Incisional SSI rate

0.22

0.022 (0.004, 0.040)

46 (25, 243)

0.12, 1.70

Low

⊕⊕◯◯

Reoperation rate

0.01

0.000 (− 0.013, 0.014)

3,007 (> 76 to harm, > 72 to benefit)

0.61, 1.04

Very low

⊕◯◯◯

Margin involvement rate

0.22

0.044 (0.013, 0.075)

23 (13, 79)

0.15, 2.68

Moderate

⊕⊕⊕◯

Numeric endpoints

MD (95% CI)

Clinical importance of the MD

95% prediction interval

GRADE certainty of evidence

Operating time

75.17 (48.05, 102.28)

Moderate

− 58.77, 209.11

Low

⊕⊕◯◯

Estimated blood loss

− 191.35 (− 238.12, − 144.59)

Low

− 382.04, − 0.66

Moderate

⊕⊕⊕◯

Length of hospital stay

− 1.00 (− 1.88, − 0.12)

Moderate

− 4.32, 2.32

Very low

⊕◯◯◯

Number of lymph nodes harvested

2.88 (1.12, 4.65)

Moderate

− 3.97, 9.73

Low

⊕⊕◯◯

  1. RRR relative risk reduction; ARR absolute risk reduction; NNT numbers needed to treat; 95%CI 95% confidence interval; POPF postoperative pancreatic fistula; DGE delayed gastric emptying; SSI surgical site infection; MD mean difference.
Back to article page