Efficiency of bowel preparation for capsule endoscopy examination: A meta-analysis

Table 2 List of 7 case-control studies, comparing transit times and proportions of cecum demonstration, fulfilling the inclusion/exclusion criteria (n = 401)

Author	Ref.	Prep.	No. with	No. without	GTT with (min)	GTT without (min)	SBTT with (min)	SBTT without (min)	Cecum reached with	Cecum reached without
Niv Y, 2004	10	Na-P	22	10	25.0	18.0	300	333	16	5
Viazis N, 20042	17	PEG 2L	40	40	36.2	44.1	291.8	304.6	32	26
Niv Y, 2005	11	Na-P	23	23	25.0	40.0	341	241	18	18
Ben-Soussan E, 2005	13	PEG 2L	26	16	45.7	25.5	288	271	24	16
Fireman Z, 2005	14	PEG 1L or Na-Por Erythro	551	401	39.7	45.5	228	218	NM	NM
Dai N, 2005	16	PEG 4L	33	28	13.0	14.0	213	253	32	22
Caddy GR, 2006	15	Erythro	22	23	50.5	38.4	304.4	302.6	7	5
Total			166	140					129	92
Average ± SD					33.5 ± 13.2	32.2 ± 12.8	280.8 ± 44.9	274.7 ± 40.6
Proportion									0.76	0.68
P					0.296		0.155		0.38

With: With preparation; Without: Without preparation; GTT: Gastric transit time; SBTT: Small bowel transit time; Na-P: Sodium-phosphate; Prep.: Preparation; PEG: Polyethylene glycol; NM: Not mentioned.

¹Not included;

²Randomized controlled trial.