Magnetic endoscopic imaging vs standard colonoscopy: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Table 2 Summary of findings for the main comparison of magnetic endoscopic imaging colonoscope and standard colonoscope

Outcomes	Illustrative comparative risks1 (95%CI)		Relative effect (95%CI)	No of Participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Standard colonoscope	Magnetic endoscope imaging colonoscope
Cecal intubation rate	Study population		OR = 1.92 (1.13-3.27)	2945 (8 studies)	+ + + -Moderate1
	912 per 1000	952 per 1000(921 to 971)
	Moderate
	939 per 1000	967 per 1000(946 to 981)
Cecal intubation time		The mean cecal intubation time in the intervention groups was 0.43 lower(0.13 lower to 0.28 higher)		1934 (3 studies)	+ + + +High1

¹The basis for the assumed risk (e.g., the median control group risk across studies) is provided in the footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95%CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95%CI). GRADE: Working Group grades of evidence. High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of the effect; Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of the 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 the effect and is likely to change the estimate; Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.