Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30067180›Full record

SynthesisCanadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie2018

Propofol administration by endoscopists versus anesthesiologists in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of patient safety outcomes.

Julian F Daza, Carolyn M Tan, Ryan J Fielding, Allison Brown, Forough Farrokhyar, Ilun Yang

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. RemimazolamPeerJ · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Remimazolam: Promising sedative for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. [2021 Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinical Practice Guidelines for Endoscopic Sedation].The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2022
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Assessment of pain between sedated and unsedated colonoscopy: Double-blind randomized clinical trail.Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2021
    Article
  16. PropofolWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2019
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Julian F DazaFrom the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine - Niagara Regional Campus, McMaster University, St. Catharines, Ont.(Daza, Tan, Brown); the Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Fielding, Farrokhyar, Yang); and the Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Brown, Farrokhyar).
Carolyn M TanFrom the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine - Niagara Regional Campus, McMaster University, St. Catharines, Ont.(Daza, Tan, Brown); the Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Fielding, Farrokhyar, Yang); and the Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Brown, Farrokhyar).
Ryan J FieldingFrom the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine - Niagara Regional Campus, McMaster University, St. Catharines, Ont.(Daza, Tan, Brown); the Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Fielding, Farrokhyar, Yang); and the Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Brown, Farrokhyar).
Allison BrownFrom the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine - Niagara Regional Campus, McMaster University, St. Catharines, Ont.(Daza, Tan, Brown); the Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Fielding, Farrokhyar, Yang); and the Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Brown, Farrokhyar).
Forough FarrokhyarFrom the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine - Niagara Regional Campus, McMaster University, St. Catharines, Ont.(Daza, Tan, Brown); the Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Fielding, Farrokhyar, Yang); and the Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Brown, Farrokhyar).
Ilun YangFrom the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine - Niagara Regional Campus, McMaster University, St. Catharines, Ont.(Daza, Tan, Brown); the Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Fielding, Farrokhyar, Yang); and the Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Brown, Farrokhyar).
Regional Municipality of Niagara · CAMcMaster University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith a growing demand for endoscopic services, the role of anesthesiologists in endoscopy units must be reassessed. The aim of this study was to compare patient outcomes in non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) versus anesthesiologist-administered propofol (AAP) during routine endoscopy.

methodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL and the grey literature for studies comparing NAAP and AAP. Primary outcomes included endoscopy- and sedation-related complications. Secondary outcomes included measures of endoscopy quality and of patient and endoscopist satisfaction. We reported treatment effects using random-effects models.

resultsOf 602 articles identified, 5 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies included only patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification of I or II. Non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol did not result in increased rates of airway intervention (odds ratio [OR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29 to 3.95; 3443 patients) or hypotension (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.40 to 5.41; 17 978 patients) but did result in higher rates of bradycardia (OR 3.68, 95% CI 1.65 to 8.17; 17 978 patients). Nonanesthesiologists administered lower propofol dosages than anesthesiologists (mean difference -61.79, 95% CI -114.46 to -9.12; 3443 patients), and their patients more commonly experienced awareness with recall (OR 19.99, 95% CI 7.88 to 50.76; 2090 patients). However, NAAP neither compromised patient willingness to repeat the procedure (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.83; 2367 patients) nor lengthened total procedure time (mean difference -0.08, 95% CI -3.51 to 3.34; 2367 patients).

conclusionEndoscopists may safely administer propofol without compromising procedural quality in patients classified as ASA I or II undergoing routine endoscopy. The results of this meta-analysis are limited by a lack of available high-quality studies. Further, large-scale studies are needed for definitive conclusions.

Indexed as

Endoscopy, GastrointestinalPatient SafetyAnesthetics, IntravenousHumansPropofolAnesthetics, IntravenousPropofol

Identifiers

PMID30067180
PMCPMC6066388
OpenAlexW2887838615

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.