Meta-Analysis
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2019.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Apr 16, 2019; 11(4): 281-291
Published online Apr 16, 2019. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v11.i4.281
Table 3 Quality (certainty) of evidence of the studies selected, as determined by the GRADE criteria
Parameter
Risk of biasInconsistencyIndirectnessImprecisionPublication biasOverall certainty of evidence
No. of patients (studies)
Technical success
222 (3 RCTs)Not seriousNot seriousNot seriousSeriousaNoneModerate
Clinical success
155 (2 RCTs)SeriousbNot seriousSeriouscSeriousaNoneVery low
Procedure duration
222 (3 RCTs)Not seriousVery seriousdSeriouseSeriousaNoneVery low
Adverse events
222 (3 RCTs)Not seriousVery seriousdNot seriousSeriousaNoneVery low
Stent patency
97 (2 RCTs)SeriousbNot seriousSeriouseSeriousaNoneVery low
Stent dysfunction
155 (2 RCTs)Not seriousNot seriousSeriouseNot seriousStrongly suspectedLow

  • Citation: Logiudice FP, Bernardo WM, Galetti F, Sagae VM, Matsubayashi CO, Madruga Neto AC, Brunaldi VO, de Moura DTH, Franzini T, Cheng S, Matuguma SE, de Moura EGH. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided vs endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography biliary drainage for obstructed distal malignant biliary strictures: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 11(4): 281-291
  • URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5190/full/v11/i4/281.htm
  • DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v11.i4.281