ISBN: Table 108: Clinical evidence summary: Nucifora 2006: Mid-length MDT clinic (MDTc) vs Primary care for high risk HF Outcomes No of Participants (studies) Follow up Quality of the evidence (GRADE) Relative effect Anticipated absolute effects Risk with primary care Risk difference with MDTc (95% CI) VERY LOWa, b due to risk of bias, imprecision rate ratio (from 217 fewer to 289 more) VERY LOWa, b due to risk of bias, imprecision (from 17 fewer to 243 more) Quality of life Minnesota LWHFQ (change score) lower=better. Scale from: 0 to 105. VERY LOWa, b due to risk of bias, imprecision The mean change MLWFQ in the control groups was The mean in the intervention groups was 4 higher (worse) (1.82 lower to 9.82 higher) Prescribed ACE-I 178 MODERATEa due to risk of bias (from 113 fewer to 121 more) Prescribed beta-blocker 178 VERY LOWa, b due to risk of bias, imprecision (from 122 fewer to 81 more) Taking prescribed medication 178 LOWa due to risk of bias (from 67 fewer to 143 more) (a) Downgraded by 1 increment if the majority of the evidence was at high risk of bias, and downgraded by 2 increments if the majority of the evidence was at very high risk of bias. (b) Downgraded by 1 increment as confidence interval crosses 1 MID or 2 increments as confidence interval crosses both MIDs. Referral and approach to care Chronic Heart Failure NICE 2018. All rights reserved. Subject to Notice of rights. 