SynthesisIndian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology2018
No increased risk of perforation during colonoscopy in patients undergoing propofol versus traditional sedation: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [The updated S3 guidelines: sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy : Innovations and relevant aspects for the routine].Die Anaesthesiologie · 2025Review
- Comparative Study of Moderate Sedation with Propofol Versus Propofol Combined with Midazolam for Ambulatory Care Digestive Endoscopic Procedures.Current health sciences journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsThe safety of propofol sedation during colonoscopy remains unclear, and we performed a meta-analysis to assess the risk of perforation in patients undergoing propofol vs. traditional sedation.
methodsMEDLINE, CBM, VIP, CNKI, and Wanfang databases were searched up to December 2016. Two reviewers independently assessed abstract of those searched articles. Data about perforation condition in propofol and traditional sedation groups were extracted and combined using the random effects model.
resultsA total of 19 studies were included in the current meta-analysis. Compared to traditional sedation, propofol sedation did not increase the risk of perforation (RD = - 0.00, 95% CI - 0.00~0.00, p = 0.98; subgroup analysis: OR = 1.30, 95% CI 0.83~2.05, p = 0.25).
conclusionThis meta-analysis suggested that propofol sedation did not increase the risk of perforation compared to traditional sedation during colonoscopy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29520582What 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.