Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24833847›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of gastroenterology2014

Propofol use in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound.

Danny G Cheriyan, Michael F Byrne

Abstract readEditorialReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of gastroenterology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Danny G CheriyanDanny G Cheriyan, Michael F Byrne, Department of Gastroenterology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada.
Michael F ByrneDanny G Cheriyan, Michael F Byrne, Department of Gastroenterology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Compared to standard endoscopy, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) are often lengthier and more complex, thus requiring higher doses of sedatives for patient comfort and compliance. The aim of this review is to provide the reader with information regarding the use, safety profile, and merits of propofol for sedation in advanced endoscopic procedures like ERCP and EUS, based on the current literature.

Indexed as

Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeEndosonographyAnesthetics, IntravenousCost-Benefit AnalysisDrug CostsHumansProcedural SedationPropofolRisk FactorsAnesthetics, IntravenousPropofolEndoscopic ultrasoundEndoscopyNdoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyPropofolSafety

Identifiers

PMID24833847
PMCPMC4017032

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.