Summary of findings for the main comparison. Enema plus glucagon versus enema alone.
| Enema plus glucagon versus enema alone summary of findings table | |||||
| Patient or population: children with intussusception Setting: single centre, in‐patient setting Intervention: liquid enema plus glucagon Comparison: liquid enema alone | |||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Number of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | |
| Risk with liquid enema alone | Risk with liquid enema plus glucagon | ||||
| Successfully reduced intussusception | Study population | RR 1.09 (0.94 to 1.26) | 218 (2 studies) | Lowa | |
| 739 per 1000 | 805 per 1000 (694 to 931) | ||||
| Moderate | |||||
| 649 per 1000 | 707 per 1000 (610 to 818) | ||||
| Bowel perforation(s) | Outcome not reported in any studies | ||||
| Recurrent intussusception (follow‐up: 6 months) |
Outcome not reported in any studies | ||||
| Bowel resection | Outcome not reported in any studies | ||||
| Postoperative complication(s) | Outcome not reported in any studies | ||||
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on assumed risk in the comparison group and relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI) CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio | |||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to the estimate of effect Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect but may be substantially different Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of effect Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect | |||||
aDowngraded two levels for serious concerns for high risk of selection, attrition, and performance bias