Table 2 GRADE table for this meta-analysis
From: Laser treatment for Cafe-au-lait Macules: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Outcome | No. of studies (patients) | Risk of bias | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Publication bias | Quality of evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
75% Clearance-overall | 17 (928) | Not serious (23.5% had a high risk of bias) | Serious (high heterogeneity I2 = 96%) | Not serious | Not serious (95% CI 0.318–0.547) | Not serious (no evidence) | Moderate |
75% Clearance-Q | 11 (817) | Not serious (27.3% had a high risk of bias) | Serious (high heterogeneity I2 = 95%) | Not serious | Not serious (95% CI 0.299–0.559) | Not serious (no evidence) | Moderate |
75% Clearance-NQ | 8 (111) | Not serious (12.5% had a high risk of bias) | Serious (high heterogeneity I2 = 96%) | Not serious | Not serious (95% CI 0.209–0.677) | Not serious (no evidence) | Moderate |
75% Clearance-1064 | 5 (155) | Not serious (20% had a high risk of bias) | Serious (high heterogeneity I2 = 90%) | Not serious | Not serious (95% CI 0.269–0.747) | Not serious (no evidence) | Moderate |
75% Clearance-755 | 3 (589) | Not serious (0.0% had a high risk of bias) | Serious (high heterogeneity I2 = 77%) | Not serious | Not serious (95% CI 0.272–0.505) | Not serious (no evidence) | Moderate |
75% Clearance-694 | 3 (48) | Serious (66.6% had a high risk of bias) | Serious (high heterogeneity I2 = 96%) | Not serious | Not serious (95% CI 0–0.775) | Not serious (no evidence) | Moderate |
75% Clearance-532 | 6 (92) | Not serious (16.7% had a high risk of bias) | Not serious (low heterogeneity I2 = 38%) | Not serious | Not serious (95% CI 0.271–0.466) | Not serious (no evidence) | High |
50% Clearance-overall | 17 (928) | Not serious (23.5% had high risk of bias) | Serious (high heterogeneity I2 = 89%) | Not serious | Not serious (95% CI 0.622–0.859) | Not serious (no evidence) | Moderate |
50% Clearance-Q | 11 (817) | Not serious (27.3% had a high risk of bias) | Serious (high heterogeneity I2 = 96%) | Not serious | Not serious (95% CI 0.542–0.784) | Not serious (no evidence) | Moderate |
50% Clearance-NQ | 8 (111) | Not serious (12.5% had a high risk of bias) | Serious (high heterogeneity I2 = 87%) | Not serious | Not serious (95% CI 0.625–0.977) | Not serious (no evidence) | Moderate |
50% Clearance-1064 | 5 (155) | Not serious (20% had a high risk of bias) | Serious (high heterogeneity I2 = 88%) | Not serious | Not serious (95% CI 0.583–0.937) | Not serious (no evidence) | Moderate |
50% Clearance-755 | 3 (589) | Not serious (0% had a high risk of bias) | Serious (high heterogeneity I2 = 83%) | Not serious | Not serious (95% CI 0.389–0.714) | Not serious (no evidence) | Moderate |
50% Clearance-694 | 3 (48) | Serious (66.6% had a high risk of bias) | Serious (high heterogeneity I2 = 97%) | Not serious | Not serious (95% CI 0.052–1.000) | Not serious (no evidence) | Moderate |
50% Clearance-532 | 6 (92) | Not serious (16.7% had a high risk of bias) | Serious (high heterogeneity I2 = 87%) | Not serious | Not serious (95% CI 0.500–0.995) | Not serious (no evidence) | Moderate |
Recurrence-overall | 10 (349) | Not serious (30.0% had a high risk of bias) | Serious (high heterogeneity I2 = 88%) | Not serious | Not serious (95% CI 0.032–0.265) | Not serious (no evidence) | Moderate |
Recurrence-1064 | 5 (155) | Not serious (20.0% had a high risk of bias) | Serious (high heterogeneity I2 = 72%) | Not serious | Not serious (95% CI 0–0.102) | Not serious (no evidence) | Moderate |
Recurrence-755 | 2 (89) | Not serious (0.0% had a high risk of bias) | Serious (high heterogeneity I2 = 93%) | Not serious | Not serious (95% CI 0.011–0.660) | Not serious (no evidence) | Moderate |
Recurrence-694 | 2 (33) | Serious (100.0% had a high risk of bias) | Not serious (low heterogeneity I2 = 0%) | Not serious | Not serious (95% CI 0.430–0.774) | Not serious (no evidence) | Moderate |
Recurrence-532 | 3 (42) | Not serious (0.0% had a high risk of bias) | Not serious (low heterogeneity I2 = 0%) | Not serious | Not serious (95% CI 0.033–0.260) | Not serious (no evidence) | High |
Hypopigmentation-overall | 14 (951) | Not serious (14.3% had a high risk of bias) | Not serious (low heterogeneity I2 = 0%) | Not serious | Not serious (95% CI 0.004–0.020) | Not serious (no evidence) | High |
Hypopigmentation-1064 | 5 (155) | Not serious (20.0% had a high risk of bias) | Not serious (low heterogeneity I2 = 26%) | Not serious | Not serious (95% CI 0.000–0.025) | Not serious (no evidence) | High |
Hypopigmentation-755 | 4 (634) | Not serious (0.0% had a high risk of bias) | Not serious (low heterogeneity I2 = 16%) | Not serious | Not serious (95% CI 0.003–0.025) | Not serious (no evidence) | High |
Hypopigmentation–532 | 3 (68) | Not serious (0.0% had a high risk of bias) | Not serious (low heterogeneity I2 = 25%) | Not serious | Not serious (95% CI 0.000–0.075) | Not serious (no evidence) | High |
Hyperpigmentation-overall | 14 (951) | Not serious (14.3% had a high risk of bias) | Not serious (low heterogeneity I2 = 0%) | Not serious | Not serious (95% CI 0.003–0.020) | Not serious (no evidence) | High |
Hyperpigmentation-1064 | 5 (155) | Not serious (20.0% had a high risk of bias) | Not serious (low heterogeneity I2 = 0%) | Not serious | Not serious (95% CI 0.000–0.025) | Not serious (no evidence) | High |
Hyperpigmentation-755 | 4 (634) | Not serious (0.0% had a high risk of bias) | Not serious (low heterogeneity I2 = 0%) | Not serious | Not serious (95% CI 0.002–0.022) | Not serious (no evidence) | High |
Hyperpigmentation–532 | 3 (68) | Not serious (0.0% had a high risk of bias) | Not serious (low heterogeneity I2 = 32%) | Not serious | Not serious (95% CI 0.000–0.039) | Not serious (no evidence) | High |