Table 2.
Summary of study findings and grade of evidence
| Outcomesa) | Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) |
Relative effect(95% CI) | No. of polyps/no. of studies | Certainty assessment |
Overall certainty of evidence | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Risk with thick snare | Risk with thin snare | Risk of bias | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | ||||
| Histological resection | 881 per 1,000 | 907 per 1,000 (854–960) | RR, 1.03 (0.97–1.09) | 1,425/5 | + | + | – | – | Low |
| ●●○○ | |||||||||
| Overall bleeding | 32 per 1,000 | 31 per 1,000 (13–77) | RR, 0.98 (0.40–2.40) | 1,291/5 | + | – | – | + | Low |
| ●●○○ | |||||||||
| Polyp retrieval | 964 per 1,000 | 974 per 1,000 (935–1,002) | RR, 1.01 (0.97–1.04) | 916/3 | + | + | – | – | Low |
| ●●○○ | |||||||||
| Presence of submucosa in resection specimen | 110 per 1,000 | 141 per 1,000 (79–251) | RR, 1.28 (0.72–2.28) | 861/3 | + | – | – | + | Low |
| ●●○○ | |||||||||
PICO criteria: Population, colorectal polyps ≤10 mm; Intervention, cold snare polypectomy using thick-wire/traditional snare; Comparison, cold snare polypectomy using thin-wire/dedicated snare;
a)
Outcomes.
CI, confidence interval; RR, risk ratio.