Essa 2011.
Methods |
|
|
Participants |
Exclusion criteria: pathological lead points, late neglected intestinal obstruction, bowel perforation or shock |
|
Interventions |
Treatment group
Control group
|
|
Outcomes |
|
|
Notes |
Procedure details: The technique of ultrasound‐guided saline enema reduction involved the following: "a reservoir filled with warm, normal saline was placed at a maximum height of 120cm above the table, with its upper end opened connected to a 10‐18‐Fr Foley's catheter." The enema could be repeated twice more, after a 30‐minute rest, if the initial attempt failed (i.e. lack of reduction within 5 minutes) The ratio of participants requiring non‐surgical reduction to those requiring surgical reduction was 60:15. In other words, 4/5 participants had successful reduction achieved with non‐surgical techniques |
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | “The cases were randomly classified into two groups…”. No further details supplied |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | “The cases were randomly classified into two groups…”. No further details supplied |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | All 75 cases were reported, including those that failed initial intervention: "Cases who failed ultrasound guided saline enema reduction underwent surgical exploration, with operative details and postoperative complications also reported" |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Study includes all expected outcomes |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | No placebo treatment used in control group |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Not specified who assessed outcomes |