ISBN: Outcomes No of Participants (studies) Follow up Quality of the evidence (GRADE) Relative effect Anticipated absolute effects Risk with Clinical monitoring Risk difference with NP monitoring (95% CI) f The control rate refers to the overall control risk in the Troughton meta-analysis (11 studies) g Heterogeneity could not be formally assessed due to use of pooled data, which comprised seven of the nine included studies for the outcome. The paper reporting the pooled data did not report any statistics related to heterogeneity h Scores estimated using a standardised mean difference of -0.04 (-0.2 to 0.11) i Downgraded by 2 increment as point estimates were inconsistent with little overlap of confidence intervals, not enough studies to perform sub-group analysis, I2 j Unable to estimate as zero events in both arms of the trial Table 82: Clinical evidence summary: NP monitoring v no monitoring protocol Outcomes No of Participants (studies) Follow up Quality of the evidence (GRADE) Relative effect Anticipated absolute effects Risk with No monitoring (primary or secondary care) Risk difference with NP monitoring Mortality (HR) - Age <75 years 70 LOWb due to risk of bias Estimatea (from 37 fewer to 309 fewer) Mortality (HR) - Age 75 and over 50 VERY LOWb,c due to risk of bias, imprecision Estimatea (from 207 fewer to 584 more) Mortality (RR) - Age <75 years 122 MODERATEc due to imprecision (from 234 fewer to 0 more) Mortality (RR) - Age 75 and over 121 MODERATEc due to imprecision (from 28 fewer to 414 more) Mortality (RR) - All ages 182 HIGH (from 43 fewer to 253 fewer) Monitoring Chronic Heart Failure NICE 2018. All rights reserved. Subject to Notice of rights. 