| Inpatient/outpatient care: Comparison 8. Individual segregation versus usual care | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Usual care | Individual segregation | |||||
| Patient satisfaction (narrative results) | 23.3% of patients said that their quality of life would suffer a ‘significant amount’ or ‘a great deal’ if they were to begin avoiding others | 62.5% of patients said that their quality of life did not suffer as a result. | Not estimable | 94 (Waine 2007) | vey low1,2 | Narrative results only |
The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
Abbreviations: CI: confidence interval
The quality of the evidence was downgraded by 2 because high risk of bias in relation to sample selection, the comparability between the groups and the outcome reporting and assessment.
Imprecision cannot be calculated with the data reported
From: 11, Prevention of cross infection
NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.