Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32128226›Full record

ArticleBMJ open gastroenterology2020

Practice recommendations for the use of sedation in routine hospital-based colonoscopy.

Fahima Dossa, Catherine Dubé, Jill Tinmouth, Anne Sorvari, Linda Rabeneck, Bronwen R McCurdy, Jason A Dominitz, Nancy N Baxter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open gastroenterology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Comparison of Fentanyl, Ketamine, and Lidocaine Combined with Propofol Anesthesia in Patients with Crohn Disease Undergoing Colonoscopy.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

8 authors.

Fahima DossaDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4670-7445
Catherine DubéDepartment of Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Jill TinmouthInstitute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Anne SorvariDepartment of General Surgery, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Linda RabeneckCancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Bronwen R McCurdyCancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Jason A DominitzDepartment of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, VA Puget Sound Health Care System and University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Nancy N BaxterDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

CIHR 148470
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Although sedation improves patient experience during colonoscopy, there is great jurisdictional variability in sedative practices. The objective of this study was to develop practice recommendations for the use of moderate and deep sedation in routine hospital-based colonoscopy to facilitate standardisation of practice. Design: We recruited 32 multidisciplinary panellists to participate in a modified Delphi process to establish consensus-based recommendations for the use of sedation in colonoscopy. Panel members participated in a values assessment survey followed by two rounds of anonymous online voting on preliminary practice recommendations. An inperson meeting was held between voting rounds to facilitate consensus-building. Consensus was defined as >60% agreement/disagreement with recommendation statements; >80% agreement/disagreement was considered indicative of strong consensus. Results: Twenty-nine panellists participated in the values assessment survey. Panellists ranked all factors presented as important to the development of practice recommendations. The factor considered most important was patient safety. Patient satisfaction, procedural efficiency, and cost were considered less important. Strong consensus was achieved for all nine practice recommendations presented to the panel. These recommendations included that all endoscopists be able to perform colonoscopy with moderate sedation, that an endoscopist and a single trained nurse are sufficient for performing colonoscopy with moderate sedation, and that anaesthesia-provided deep sedation be used for select patients. Conclusion: The recommendations presented in this study were agreed on by a multidisciplinary group and provide guidance for the use of sedation in routine hospital-based colonoscopy. Standardised sedation practices will promote safe, effective, and efficient colonoscopy for all patients.

Indexed as

AnesthesiaColonoscopyHospitalsHumansHypnotics and SedativesProcedural SedationHypnotics and Sedativescolonoscopyendoscopyscreening

Identifiers

PMID32128226
PMCPMC7039579

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.