Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32879659›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy2020

Propofol

John Alexander Lata Guacho, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura, Igor Braga Ribeiro, Alberto Machado da Ponte Neto, Shailendra Singh, Marina Gammaro Baldavira Tucci, Wanderley Marques Bernardo, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de Moura

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Up-to-date literature review and issues of sedation during digestive endoscopy.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2023
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

John Alexander Lata GuachoGastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo 05403-010, Brazil.
Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de MouraGastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo 05403-010, Brazil.
Igor Braga RibeiroGastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo 05403-010, Brazil. igorbraga1@gmail.com.
Alberto Machado da Ponte NetoGastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo 05403-010, Brazil.
Shailendra SinghDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, West Virginia University, Charleston, WV 25304, United States.
Marina Gammaro Baldavira TucciGastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo 05403-010, Brazil.
Wanderley Marques BernardoGastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo 05403-010, Brazil.
Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de MouraGastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo 05403-010, Brazil.
Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo · BRWest Virginia University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with cirrhosis frequently require sedation for elective endoscopic procedures. Several sedation protocols are available, but choosing an appropriate sedative in patients with cirrhosis is challenging.

aimTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare propofol and midazolam for sedation in patients with cirrhosis during elective endoscopic procedures in an attempt to understand the best approach.

methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using the PRISMA guidelines. Electronic searches were performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central Cochrane, LILACS databases. Only randomized control trials (RCTs) were included. The outcomes studied were procedure time, recovery time, discharge time, and adverse events (bradycardia, hypotension, and hypoxemia). The risk of bias assessment was performed using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2). Quality of evidence was evaluated by GRADEpro. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager.

resultsThe search yielded 3,576 records. Out of these, 8 RCTs with a total of 596 patients (302 in the propofol group and 294 in the midazolam group) were included for the final analysis. Procedure time was similar between midazolam and propofol groups (MD: 0.25, 95%CI: -0.64 to 1.13,

conclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis based on RCTs show that propofol has shorter recovery and patient discharge time as compared to midazolam with a similar rate of adverse events. These results suggest that propofol should be the preferred agent for sedation in patients with cirrhosis.

Indexed as

CirrhosisEndoscopicEndoscopyMeta-analysisMidazolamPropofolSedation

Identifiers

PMID32879659
PMCPMC7443824
OpenAlexW3049543119

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.