ISBN: Outcomes No of Participants (studies) Follow up Quality of the evidence (GRADE) Relative effect Anticipated absolute effects Risk with primary +/- secondary care Risk difference with MDTc (95% CI) VERY LOWa, c due to risk of bias, imprecision (from 51 fewer to 213 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 one increment for indirectness as not protocol outcome of all-cause hospitalisations c Downgraded by 1 increment if the confidence interval crossed one MID or by 2 increments if the confidence interval crossed both Table 104: Clinical evidence summary: Rao 2007: Short MDT clinic (MDTc) versus 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) MODERATEa due to imprecision Rate Ratio (from 47 fewer to 525 more) LOWa due to imprecision (from 36 fewer to 144 more) Prescribed ACE-I 112 MODERATEa due to imprecision (from 32 more to 423 more) Prescribed beta-blocker 112 HIGH peto OR (from 75 more to 467 more) Referral and approach to care Chronic Heart Failure NICE 2018. All rights reserved. Subject to Notice of rights. ISBN: 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) (a) Downgraded by one increment as confidence interval cross 1 MID or 2 increments as the confidence interval crosses both MID. 9.2.3.1.3 High risk, Short, Nurse-led or pharmacist-led clinic No studies were identified in this category. 