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.