Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25293829›Full record

ArticleGastrointestinal endoscopy2015

Development and validation of the PROcedural Sedation Assessment Survey (PROSAS) for assessment of procedural sedation quality.

Daniel A Leffler, Bolanle Bukoye, Mandeep Sawhney, Tyler Berzin, Kenneth Sands, Sona Chowdary, Anita Shah, Sheila Barnett

Registry-linked trialAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT07699731 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

The Effect of Pre-procedural Anxiety Level on Procedure Tolerability and Quality of ERCP in Consciously Sedated Patients

TypeobservationalSponsorMandip RaiRan2026 to 2027Enrolled200ConditionsAnxiety, Biliary and Pancreatic Diseases, ERCPArmsNot applicable- observational study
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Fentanyl may not be necessary for adequate endoscopic moderate sedation.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

Daniel A LefflerDivision of Gastroenterology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Bolanle BukoyeDivision of Gastroenterology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Mandeep SawhneyDivision of Gastroenterology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Tyler BerzinDivision of Gastroenterology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Kenneth SandsDepartment of Health Care Quality, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Sona ChowdaryDivision of Gastroenterology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Anita ShahDivision of Gastroenterology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Sheila BarnettDepartment of Anesthesiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Funding

Non-invasive markers of celiac disease activity during gluten challengeK23DK082619 · NIDDK · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI LEFFLER, DANIEL ALEXANDER · 2009 to 2013
$887k
NIDDK NIH HHS K23 DK082619
6 · The paper itself

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

Patient Outcome AssessmentPatient SatisfactionSurveys and QuestionnairesAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDeep SedationEndoscopy, GastrointestinalFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedProcedural SedationYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25293829
PMCPMC4272880

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.