Summary of findings for the main comparison. Caecal Intubation Rate for.
| Caecal Intubation Rate for | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with Settings: Intervention: Caecal Intubation Rate | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Control | Caecal Intubation Rate | |||||
| Total Successful Intubation Rate | Study population | OR 1.36 (0.95 to 1.93) | 5932 (12 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | ||
| 975 per 1000 | 981 per 1000 (974 to 987) | |||||
| Medium risk population | ||||||
| 982 per 1000 | 987 per 1000 (981 to 991) | |||||
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; OR: Odds ratio; | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1 related to blinding of the patients and endoscopists ‐ some trials did attempt to overcome this difficulty, whilst others did not. With regards randomisation, some studies chose an inadequate randomisation method.