Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30023057›Full record

ReviewUnited European gastroenterology journal2018

Propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Toshihiro Nishizawa, Hidekazu Suzuki

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in United European gastroenterology journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 108 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Median effective dose (EDBMC anesthesiology · 2026
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Toshihiro NishizawaDepartment of Gastroenterology, National Hospital Organization Tokyo Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Hidekazu SuzukiDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Keio University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are now performed with sedation. Moderate sedation using benzodiazepines and opioids continues to be widely used, but propofol sedation is becoming more popular because its unique pharmacokinetic properties make endoscopy almost painless, with a very predictable and rapid recovery process. There is controversy as to whether propofol should be administered only by anesthesia professionals. According to published values, endoscopist-directed propofol has a lower mortality rate than endoscopist-delivered benzodiazepines and opioids, and a comparable rate to general anesthesia by anesthesiologists. Rapid recovery has a major impact on patient satisfaction, post-procedure education and the general flow of the endoscopy unit. According to estimates, the absolute economic benefit of endoscopist-directed propofol implementation in a screening setting is probably substantial, with 10-year savings of $3.2 billion in the USA. Guidelines concerning the use of propofol emphasize the need for adequate training and certification in sedation by non-anesthetists.

Indexed as

gastrointestinal endoscopyPropofolsedative agents

Identifiers

PMID30023057
PMCPMC6047291
OpenAlexW2793506004

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.