ArticleGastrointestinal endoscopy2015
Development and validation of the PROcedural Sedation Assessment Survey (PROSAS) for assessment of procedural sedation quality.
Article in Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07699731 (The Effect of Pre-procedural Anxiety Level on Procedure Tolerability and Quality of ERCP in Consciously Sedated Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 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.
The Effect of Pre-procedural Anxiety Level on Procedure Tolerability and Quality of ERCP in Consciously Sedated Patients
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fentanyl may not be necessary for adequate endoscopic moderate sedation.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Trial
- Old Is (Not) Gold: Midazolam Monotherapy versus Midazolam Plus Fentanyl for Sedation during Cardiac Catheterization.Journal of interventional cardiology · 2021Trial
- Trends in research on pain relief during oocyte retrieval for IVF/ICSI: a systematic, methodological review.Human reproduction open · 2022Review
- A randomised study of comfort during bronchoscopy comparing conscious sedation and anaesthetist-controlled general anaesthesia, including the utility of bispectral index monitoring.ERJ open research · 2021Article
- Capnographic Monitoring of Moderate Sedation During Low-Risk Screening Colonoscopy Does Not Improve Safety or Patient Satisfaction: A Prospective Cohort Study.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2016Article
- Resident trainees do not affect patient satisfaction in an outpatient gastroenterology clinic: a prospective study conducted in a Canadian gastroenterology clinic.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMore than 20 million invasive procedures are performed annually in the United States. The vast majority are performed with moderate sedation or deep sedation, yet there is limited understanding of the drivers of sedation quality and patient satisfaction. Currently, the major gap in quality assurance for invasive procedures is the lack of procedural sedation quality measures.
objectiveTo develop and validate a robust, patient-centered measure of procedural sedation quality, the PROcedural Sedation Assessment Survey (PROSAS).
designThrough a series of interviews with patients, proceduralists, nurses, anesthesiologists, and an interactive patient focus group, major domains influencing procedural sedation quality were used to create a multipart survey. The pilot survey was administered and revised in sequential cohorts of adults receiving moderate sedation for GI endoscopy. After revision, the PROSAS was administered to a validation cohort.
settingGI endoscopy unit. PATIENTS: A expert panel of proceduralists, nurses, and anesthesiologists, an initial survey development cohort of 40 patients, and a validation cohort of 858 patients undergoing sedation for outpatient GI endoscopy with additional surveys completed by the gastroenterologist, procedure nurse, and recovery nurse. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASUREMENTS: Survey characteristics of the PROSAS.
resultsPatients were able to independently complete the PROSAS after procedural sedation before discharge. Of the patients, 91.6% reported minimal discomfort; however, 8.4% of patients reported significant discomfort and 2.4% of patients experienced hemodynamic and/or respiratory instability. There was a high correlation between patient-reported intraprocedure discomfort and both clinician assessments of procedural discomfort and patient recall of procedural pain 24 to 48 hours post procedure (P < .001 for all), suggesting high external validity. LIMITATIONS: Single-center study, variability of sedation technique between providers, inclusion of patients with chronic pain taking analgesics.
conclusionsThe PROSAS is a clinically relevant, patient-centered, easily administered instrument that allows for standardized evaluation of procedural sedation quality. The PROSAS may be useful in both research and clinical settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.