ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2012
Increased sedation requirements during endoscopy in patients with celiac disease.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Up-to-date literature review and issues of sedation during digestive endoscopy.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2023Review
- Adult celiac disease with persistent IBS-type symptoms: a pilot study of an adjuvant FODMAP diet.Gastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench · 2021Article
- Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: current issues.World journal of gastroenterology · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCeliac disease (CD) is associated with increased rates of neuropsychiatric disease and irritable bowel syndrome, and patients may exhibit visceral hypersensitivity.
aimThe purpose of this study was to determine whether patients with CD have increased sedation requirements during endoscopic procedures.
methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, we identified CD patients undergoing either a colonoscopy or esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), but not a dual procedure. CD patients were matched with control patients according to age, gender and endoscopist. For sedation requirements we defined "high" as falling outside of the 75th percentile of the entire cohort.
resultsIn the colonoscopy analysis we identified 113 CD patients and 278 controls. In the CD group, 29 individuals (26%) required high amounts of both opioids and midazolam, as compared to 46 (17%) controls (P = 0.05). Differences were similar when considering only opioids (P = 0.06) and midazolam (P = 0.06). In the EGD analysis we identified 314 CD patients and 314 controls who met the inclusion criteria. Among the CD patients, 70 (22%) required high amounts of both opioids and midazolam compared to 51 (16%) controls (P = 0.05). Differences were similar when considering only opioids (P = 0.06) and midazolam (P = 0.04).
conclusionsPatients with CD require higher doses of sedation during upper and lower endoscopy compared to age and gender-matched controls. Putative explanations, such as visceral hypersensitivity, chronic opioid/anxiolytic use, or underlying neuropsychiatric illness, should be evaluated prospectively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22052448What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.