Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2018.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Jan 16, 2018; 10(1): 23-29
Published online Jan 16, 2018. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v10.i1.23
Table 1 Comparison of response rate between pre and post intervention
CharacteristicsPre intervention, n = 918Post intervention, n = 1256P value
Response rate (satisfaction score)31 (3.4%)508 (40.5%)< 0.0001
Table 2 Examining gender and time of procedure as independent predictors of procedure length
Time of procedure
Female, n = 1162Male, n = 1012P valueAM, n = 1089PM, n = 1084P value
Procedure length20.6 ± 12.120.9 ± 12.60.528220.1 ± 11.821.3 ± 12.80.0185
Table 3 Comparing procedure type with length of procedure
Procedure
Colonoscopy, n = 981EGD, n = 714EUS, n = 301ERCP, n = 116Enteroscopy, n = 36Flex sig, n = 20Ileoscopy, n = 6P value
Procedure length22.1 ± 10.118.6 ± 13.117.4 ± 10.723.0 ± 12.749.2 ± 19.314.8 ± 9.718.8 ± 15.2< 0.0001
Table 4 Mean age, body mass index, and procedure length
VariablenMeanStd Dev
Age217457.9728615.84377
Body mass index203027.184207.01924
Length of procedure217420.7166512.31821
Table 5 Strength of relationship between age or body mass index and procedure length
Pearson correlation coefficients, n = 2174
AgeLength of procedure
Age1.000000.07781
0.0003
Length of procedure0.077811.00000
BMILength of procedure
0.0003
BMI1.00000-0.00002
0.9993
Length of procedure-0.000021.00000
0.9993