ArticleFrontline gastroenterology2018
Paradigm shift: should the elderly undergo propofol sedation for DBE? A prospective cohort study.
Article in Frontline gastroenterology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Was Motorized Spiral Enteroscopy Too Risky? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Including German Registry Data.United European gastroenterology journal · 2026Pooled it
- Patient-reported experience in device-assisted enteroscopy: Conscious sedation vs. general anesthesia.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Multiple symptoms, multiple systems.Frontline gastroenterology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEvaluate the safety of propofol-assisted double balloon enteroscopy (DBE) in elderly patients against a younger cohort.
designProspective cohort study.
settingAll patients undergoing DBE over a 30-month period were recruited at our tertiary centre. PATIENTS: 215 procedures in 161 patients were performed. An age cut-off of 65 years and above was used to define those who were elderly.
interventionsPatients were subcategorised into four groups: elderly or young undergoing DBE with propofol or conventional sedation (with midazolam±fentanyl).
main outcome measuresPatient demographics, comorbidities, procedural data, complications, diagnostic and therapeutic yield were compared.
resultsCardiovascular disease and a higher American Society of Anaethesiologists (ASA) status were more prevalent in elderly patients undergoing DBE with propofol (p<0.05). Common indications for DBE were occult and overt obscure gastrointestinal bleeding and suspected Crohn's disease (elderly vs young: 50.7% vs 42.3%, 17.8% vs 12% and 19.2% vs 26.1%, respectively). Diagnostic yield was higher in elderly compared with young patients (75.3% vs 58.5%, p=0.016). The most common findings in elderly and young patients were angioectasia (30.1% and. 18.3%, respectively) and ulcers (17.8% and 9.2%, respectively), while therapeutic intervention rates were comparable (42.5% vs 32.4%, p=0.18). ASA status did not affect propofol dose (p=0.55) or procedure duration (p=0.31). Tolerance scores were favourable in those receiving propofol compared with conventional sedation (p<0.05). There was no difference in complications between the four groups (p=0.17).
conclusionCompared with young patients, propofol-assisted DBE in the elderly is safe and has a high diagnostic yield.
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.