Skip to main content
. 2017 Jan;5(1):E67–E75. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-118702

Table 1. Summary of Findings.

Quality assessment No of patients Effect Quality
No of studies Design Risk of bias Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Other considerations Carbon dioxide insufflation Room air insufflation Relative(95 % CI) Absolute
Mean VAS at 1 hour (Better indicated by lower values)
4 randomized trials serious1 no serious inconsistency no serious indirectness no serious imprecision none 230 231 MD 0.1 points higher (0.14 to 0.34) ⊕⊕⊕ΟMODERATE
Mean VAS at 3 hours (Better indicated by lower values)
4 randomized trials serious1 no serious inconsistency no serious indirectness no serious imprecision none 230 231 MD 0.06 points lower (0.41 to 0.29) ⊕⊕⊕ΟMODERATE
Mean VAS at 6 hours (Better indicated by lower values)
4 randomized trials serious1 no serious inconsistency no serious indirectness no serious imprecision none 230 231 MD 0.13 points higher (0.01 to 0.25) ⊕⊕⊕ΟMODERATE
Mean VAS at 24 hours (Better indicated by lower values)
3 randomized trials serious1 no serious inconsistency no serious indirectness no serious imprecision none 124 123 MD 0.11 points higher (0.03 to 0.24) ⊕⊕⊕ΟMODERATE
Insertion Depth – Anterograde (Better indicated by lower values)
3 randomized trials serious1 serious2 no serious indirectness serious3 none 210 211 MD 58.20 cm higher (17.17 to 99.23) ⊕ΟΟΟVERY LOW
Insertion Depth – Retrograde (Better indicated by lower values)
3 randomized trials serious1 serious4 no serious indirectness very serious3 none 210 211 MD 22.54 cm higher (49.08 to 94.16) ⊕ΟΟΟVERY LOW
Insertion Depth Overall (Better indicated by lower values)
3 randomized trials serious1 serious4 no serious indirectness serious3 none 120 127 MD 22.96 cm higher (8.82 to 54.74) ⊕ΟΟΟVERY LOW
Any adverse Events
4 randomized trials serious1 no serious inconsistency no serious indirectness no serious imprecision none 1 /230 (0.43 %) 2 /231 (0.87 %) RR 0.63 (0.08 to 4.98) 3 fewer events per 1000 (8 to 34) ⊕⊕⊕ΟMODERATE
Diagnostic Yield
2 randomized trials serious1 no serious inconsistency no serious indirectness no serious imprecision reporting bias5 97 /158 (61.4 %) 91 /163 (55.8 %) RR 1.07 (0.8 to 1.43) 39 more per 1000 (112 fewer to 240 more) ⊕⊕ΟΟLOW
60 % 42 more per 1000 (120 fewer to 258 more)
Total Enteroscopy Rate
2 randomized trials serious1 no serious inconsistency no serious indirectness no serious imprecision reporting bias5 39 /158 (24.7 %) 21 /163 (12.9 %) RR 1.91 (1.2 to 3.06) 117 more per 1000 26 more to 265 more) ⊕⊕ΟΟLOW
10.6 % 96 more per 1000 (21 more to 218 more)
Sedation – Propofol Dose, Oral DBE (Better indicated by lower values)
2 randomized trials serious1 no serious inconsistency no serious indirectness very serious3 reporting bias5 100 107 MD 70.53 mg lower (115.07 to 25.98) ⊕ΟΟΟVERY LOW
Blood Gas – PaCO2 – Anterograde, After DBE (Better indicated by lower values)
2 randomized trials serious1 no serious inconsistency no serious indirectness no serious imprecision reporting bias5 119 120 MD 1.2 mmHg higher (0.25 to 2.66) ⊕⊕ΟΟLOW
1

Out of 4 RCTs, 2 reported method of randomization sequence generation. In one RCT by Domagk et al. while block randomization was used, it is unclear how it was implemented as the endoscopy assistant was responsible for the allocation of the patient to the treatment group.

2

Out of 3 trials, 2 reported statistically significant findings and one showed no difference.

3

The results were associated with wide confidence intervals.

4

The results were conflicting across all 3 studies

5

Out of 4 trials only 2 reported this outcome