Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26402319›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2015

Conventional versus Analgesia-Oriented Combination Sedation on Recovery Profiles and Satisfaction after ERCP: A Randomized Trial.

Seokyung Shin, Tak Geun Oh, Moon Jae Chung, Jeong Youp Park, Seung Woo Park, Jae Bok Chung, Si Young Song, Jooyoun Cho, Sang-Hun Park, Young Chul Yoo and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

11 authors.

Seokyung ShinDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Severance Hospital, Anesthesia and Pain Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, 03722, Seoul, Korea.
Tak Geun OhDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Severance Hospital, Institute of Gastroenterology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, 03722, Seoul, Korea.
Moon Jae ChungDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Severance Hospital, Institute of Gastroenterology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, 03722, Seoul, Korea.
Jeong Youp ParkDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Severance Hospital, Institute of Gastroenterology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, 03722, Seoul, Korea.
Seung Woo ParkDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Severance Hospital, Institute of Gastroenterology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, 03722, Seoul, Korea.
Jae Bok ChungDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Severance Hospital, Institute of Gastroenterology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, 03722, Seoul, Korea.
Si Young SongDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Severance Hospital, Institute of Gastroenterology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, 03722, Seoul, Korea.
Jooyoun ChoDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Severance Hospital, Anesthesia and Pain Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, 03722, Seoul, Korea.
Sang-Hun ParkDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Severance Hospital, Anesthesia and Pain Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, 03722, Seoul, Korea.
Young Chul YooDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Severance Hospital, Anesthesia and Pain Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, 03722, Seoul, Korea.
Seungmin BangDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Severance Hospital, Institute of Gastroenterology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, 03722, Seoul, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe importance of providing effective analgesia during sedation for complex endoscopic procedures has been widely recognized. However, repeated administration of opioids in order to achieve sufficient analgesia may carry the risk of delayed recovery after propofol based sedation. This study was done to compare recovery profiles and the satisfaction of the endoscopists and patients between conventional balanced propofol sedation and analgesia-oriented combination sedation for patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

methodsTwo hundred and two adult patients scheduled for ERCP were sedated by either the Conventional (initial bolus of meperidine with propofol infusion) or Combination (repeated bolus doses of fentanyl with propofol infusion) method. Recovery profiles, satisfaction levels of the endoscopists and patients, drug requirements and complications were compared between groups.

resultsPatients of the Combination Group required significantly less propofol compared to the Conventional Group (135.0 ± 68.8 mg vs. 165.3 ± 81.7 mg, P = 0.005). Modified Aldrete scores were not different between groups throughout the recovery period, and recovery times were also comparable between groups. Satisfaction scores were not different between the two groups in both the endoscopists and patients (P = 0.868 and 0.890, respectively).

conclusionsConsidering the significant reduction in propofol dose, the non-inferiority of recovery profiles and satisfaction scores of the endoscopists and patients, analgesia oriented combination sedation may be a more safe yet effective sedative method compared to conventional balanced propofol sedation during ERCP.

Indexed as

Anesthesia Recovery PeriodCholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeDeep SedationPatient SatisfactionProcedural SedationAgedAnesthesia, IntravenousBlood PressureFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementPropofolRespiratory RateRisk FactorsPropofol

Identifiers

PMID26402319
PMCPMC4581832

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.