Table 4.
Common bile duct stone extraction success
| Study | Setting | Design | Trainee | Success rate | s.e. | 95% CI | % Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attasaranya et al. (34) | A | R | Y | 102/107=0.953 | 0.020 | 0.913–0.993 | 6.68 |
| Colton et al. (11) | C | P | N | 80/92=0.870 | 0.035 | 0.800–0.938 | 6.29 |
| Enochsson et al. (12) | A/C | P | Y | 3,140/4,074=0.771 | 0.006 | 0.757–0.784 | 6.89 |
| Ito et al. (35) | A | R | NA | 273/406=0.672 | 0.011 | 0.650–0.694 | 6.83 |
| Itoi et al. (36) | A | R | NA | 92/101=0.911 | 0.010 | 0.892–0.930 | 6.85 |
| Jeong et al. (37) | A | R | NA | 33/38=0.868 | 0.026 | 0.818–0.919 | 6.55 |
| Kapral et al. (30) | A | P | Y | 1,124/1,140=0.986 | 0.003 | 0.979–0.993 | 6.90 |
| Kim et al. (38) | A | P | NA | 96/102=0.941 | 0.023 | 0.896–0.987 | 6.62 |
| Kochhar et al. (39) | A | P | NA | 62/74=0.838 | 0.032 | 0.776–0.900 | 6.39 |
| Lee et al. (40) | A | R | NA | 102/134=0.761 | 0.037 | 0.689–0.833 | 6.24 |
| Masci et al. (41) | A/C | P | Y | 504/580=0.869 | 0.014 | 0.842–0.896 | 6.80 |
| Minami et al. (42) | A | P | NA | 87/88=0.989 | 0.011 | 0.966–1.011 | 6.83 |
| Siiki et al. (43) | C | R | N | 243/266=0.913 | 0.017 | 0.880–0.947 | 6.74 |
| Tsujino et al. (44) | A | P | NA | 304/311=0.977 | 0.008 | 0.961–0.994 | 6.86 |
| Youn et al. (45) | A | R | NA | 93/101=0.921 | 0.027 | 0.868–0.973 | 6.53 |
| Cumulative weighted success rate | 0.883 | 0.825–0.941 | 100.0 |
| Coef. | 95% CI | P value | |
| Setting | 0.010 | −1.123 to 0.143 | 0.875 |
| Design | 0.049 | −0.055 to 0.152 | 0.331 |
| Trainee | 0.001 | −0.211 to 0.214 | 0.986 |
Heterogeneity χ2=1,486.37 (d.f.=14), P=0.000; I2=99.1%; estimate of between-study variance τ2=0.0127; test of ES=0: z=29.86, P=0.000
Metaregression subgroup analysis
CI, confidence interval; Coef., coefficient; ES, effect size; NA, not applicable.