Meta-Analysis
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2023.
World J Meta-Anal. Jan 12, 2023; 11(1): 38-46
Published online Jan 12, 2023. doi: 10.13105/wjma.v11.i1.38
Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies
Ref.Study typeLocation# of patientsMale %Mean age conventional endoscopyMean age cap-assisted endoscopyType of FBs
Ooi et al[12], 2021RCTAustralia34270.553.6 ± 14.754.7 ± 15.2Food bolus
Fang et al[4], 2020Retrospective CohortChina44855.462.4 ± 18.262.8 ± 16.7Jujube pit, fish bones, poultry bones, food bolus, other sharp objects
Wahba et al[15], 2019Prospective CohortEgypt21646.252.951.7Food bolus
Ooi et al[16], 2018Retrospective CohortAustralia19969.860.8 ± 19.857.5 ± 20.2Food bolus
Zhang et al[19], 2013RCTChina7058.648.9 (23-74)47.6 (19-73)Fish bone, chicken bones
Zhang et al[14], 2010Retrospective cohortChina30NANANAFish bone, jujube pit, food bolus, coin or metal
Table 2 Quality assessment using cochrane risk of bias tool for non-randomized studies
Non-randomized studies
Ref.
Confounding
Selection of participants
Classification of interventions
Deviation from interventions
Missing outcome data
Measurement of outcome
Selection of reported results
Overall
Zhang et al[14], 20101111111Low
Ooi et al[16], 20181111111Low
Wahba et al[15], 20191111111Low
Fang et al[4], 20201111111Low
Table 3 Quality assessment using cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized studies
Randomized controlled trials
Ref.
Random sequence generation
Allocation concealment
Blinding
Blinding outcome assessment
Incomplete outcome data
Selective reporting
Other bias
Zhang et al[19], 2013UnclearUnclearUnclearUnclearLowLowLow
Ooi et al[12], 2021LowLowHighUnclearLowLowlow