Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of findings for the main comparison

From: Does the variable-stiffness colonoscope makes colonoscopy easier? A meta-analysis of the efficacy of the variable stiffness colonoscope compared with the standard adult colonoscope

The efficacy of variable-stiffness colonoscopes compared with standard adult colonoscopes

Patient or population: patients with performance of colonoscopy

Settings:

Intervention: variable-stiffness colonoscopes

Comparison: standard adult colonoscopes

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect (95% CI)

No of Participants (studies)

Quality of the evidence (GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Standard adult colonoscopes

Variable-stiffness colonoscopes

    

The cecal intubation rate

Study population

RR 1.03 (1.01 to 1.06)

1683 (9 studies)

⊕ ⊕ ⊕⊝ moderate

 

933 per 1000

961 per 1000 (942 to 989)

Moderate

912 per 1000

939 per 1000 (921 to 967)

The cecal intubation time

 

The mean the cecal intubation time in the intervention groups was

 

1583 (8 studies)

⊕ ⊕ ⊕⊝ moderate

 

0.54 lower (1.4 lower to 0.32 higher)

Midazolam used

 

The mean midazolam used in the intervention groups was

 

647 (4 studies)

⊕ ⊕ ⊕⊝ moderate

 

0.03 lower (0.15 lower to 0.08 higher)

Manual pressure used

Study population

RR 0.92 (0.75 to 1.12)

1533 (7 studies)

⊕ ⊕ ⊕⊝ moderate

 

411 per 1000

379 per 1000 (309 to 461)

Moderate

417 per 1000

384 per 1000 (313 to 467)

Meperidine used

 

The mean meperidine used in the intervention groups was

 

537 (3 studies)

⊕ ⊕ ⊕⊝ moderate

 

1.32 lower (3.64 lower to 1.01 higher)

Position changes made

Study population

OR 0.65 (0.47 to 0.89)

1066 (5 studies)

⊕ ⊕ ⊕⊝ moderate

 

375 per 1000

280 per 1000 (220 to 348)

Moderate

 

333 per 1000

245 per 1000 (190 to 308)

    
  1. 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).
  2. CI Confidence interval, RR Risk ratio, OR Odds ratio.
  3. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence.
  4. High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
  5. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
  6. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
  7. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.
Back to article page

BMC Gastroenterology

ISSN: 1471-230X

Contact us