Sensitivity analysis
| Sensitivity analysis Following ITT analysis | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initially randomised | Lost to follow-up | Deaths | Per protocol sample size | Per protocol | Favouring sutures (worst case staples) | Favouring staples (worst case sutures) | |||||
| Study | Sutures | Staples | Sutures | Staples | Sutures | Staples | Sutures | Staples | Relative risk | Relative risk (95% CI) | Relative risk (95% CI) |
| Slade Shantz et al17 | 97 | 93 | 28 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 69 | 79 | 1.14 (0.07 to 17.96) | 0.06 (0.01 to 0.47) | 27.80 (3.87 to 200) |
| Liew and Haw24 | 23 | 23 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 19 | 18 | 2.85 (0.12 to 65.74) | 0.25 (0.03 to 2.07) | 5.0 (0.25 to 98.75) |
| Shetty et al10 | 55 | 55 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 1 | 47 | 54 | 0.10 (0.01 to 1.84) | 0.09 (0.01 to 1.61) (no loss to follow-up) | |
Sensitivity analysis for the relative risk of infection. Adjusted studies were those who did not follow ITT protocol and had lost to follow-up. Adjusted relative risks were calculated for two scenarios. Scenario 1: all lost to follow-up had infection in suture group, and none in staple group. Scenario 2: all lost to follow-up had infection in staple group, and none in the suture group. Original randomised treatment sizes were used for adjusted relative risk calculations.
ITT, intention to treat.