Skip to main content

Table 2 Outcomes of interest: network meta-analysis of laparoscopic vs open vs endoscopic

From: Alternative treatments to treat perforated peptic ulcer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Age

Laparoscopic

− 0.246 (− 4.704, 3.842)

10.500 (0.017, 20.941)

 

Open

10.783 (1.138, 20.414)

  

Endoscopic

Operative Time

Laparoscopic

− 18.866 (− 44.670, 4.699)

− 49.299 (− 103.015, 2.835)

 

Open

− 30.367 (− 76.158, 16.643)

  

Endoscopic

Postoperative Complications

Laparoscopic

1.484 (0.488, 4.063)

0.713 (0.111, 4.765)

 

Open

0.474 (0.114, 2.384)

  

Endoscopic

Repair-site Leakage

  

Laparoscopic

0.214 (0.019, 1.558)

0.046 (0.001, 1.162)

 

Open

0.222 (0.010, 2.980)

  

Endoscopic

Pneumonia

  

Laparoscopic

2.004 (0.232, 14.455)

0.000 (0.000, 0.064)

 

Open

0.000 (0.000, 0.032)

  

Endoscopic

Abdominal Abscess

Laparoscopic

0.746 (0.072, 6.251)

0.267 (0.005, 9.996)

 

Open

0.374 (0.013, 7.139)

  

Endoscopic

Length of Hospital Stay

Laparoscopic

0.755 (− 1.217, 2.746)

− 5.246 (− 9.523, − 1.164)

 

Open

− 6.003 (− 9.807, − 2.392)

  

Endoscopic

  1. Comparison of the included interventions: mean difference or odds ratio (95% CrI). Each cell gives the effect of the column-defining intervention relative to the row-defining intervention. Statistically significant results are highlighted in bold