Skip to main content
. 2014 Jun 14;20(22):7034–7039. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i22.7034

Table 2.

Baseline characteristics of included trials in the meta-analysis

Study Group Age Gender Intervention Time of intervention Bowel preparation Colonoscopy staff Sedation
(M/F)
Byun et al[20] Hyoscine butylbromide Not mentioned 103 (total number) 20 mg, iv At the time of colonoscopic withdrawal Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned
Placebo 102 (total number) 1 mL NS, iv
Lee et al[21] Hyoscine butylbromide 59.4 ± 8.5 27/31 20 mg, iv When the scope reached the cecum Polyethylene glycol solution A single experienced endoscopist Midazolam, 3-5 mg, iv
Placebo 58.4 ± 7.9 23/35 1 mL NS, iv
Corte et al[10] Hyoscine butylbromide 60.6 ± 11.2 162/141 20 mg, iv After the cecum was reached PrepKit C; picoPrep; moviPrep; glycoPrep 8 endoscopists, 14 fellows Midazolam, fentanyl with or without propofol, iv
Placebo 61.4 ± 10.4 157/141 1 mL NS, iv
de Brouwer et al[15] Hyoscine butylbromide 61.5 156/184 20 mg, iv When the cecum was reached and the withdrawal of the colonoscope was started Polyethylene glycol solution 5 gastroenterologists and 3 nurse endoscopists Not mentioned
Placebo 61.4 176/158 1 mL NS, iv
Rondonotti et al[16] Hyoscine butylbromide 57.3 ± 11.5 90/112 20 mg, iv At cecal intubation Senna-based preparation Six board-certified gastroenterologists Midazolam and pethidine, iv
Placebo 57.3 ± 13.5 87/113 1 mL NS, iv