Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33302328›Full record

ArticleClinical endoscopy2021

Safety and Recipient Satisfaction of Propofol Sedation in Outpatient Endoscopy: A 24-Hour Prospective Investigation Using a Questionnaire Survey.

Yoshihide Kanno, Tetsuya Ohira, Yoshihiro Harada, Shinsuke Koshita, Takahisa Ogawa, Hiroaki Kusunose, Yoshiki Koike, Taku Yamagata, Toshitaka Sakai, Kaori Masu and 11 more

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

Article in Clinical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. ADMET & DMPK · 2024
    Article
  7. 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

21 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yoshihide KannoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sendai City Medical Center, Sendai, Japan.
Tetsuya OhiraDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sendai City Medical Center, Sendai, Japan.
Yoshihiro HaradaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sendai City Medical Center, Sendai, Japan.
Shinsuke KoshitaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sendai City Medical Center, Sendai, Japan.
Takahisa OgawaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sendai City Medical Center, Sendai, Japan.
Hiroaki KusunoseDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sendai City Medical Center, Sendai, Japan.
Yoshiki KoikeDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sendai City Medical Center, Sendai, Japan.
Taku YamagataDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sendai City Medical Center, Sendai, Japan.
Toshitaka SakaiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sendai City Medical Center, Sendai, Japan.
Kaori MasuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sendai City Medical Center, Sendai, Japan.
Keisuke YonamineDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sendai City Medical Center, Sendai, Japan.
Kazuaki MiyamotoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sendai City Medical Center, Sendai, Japan.
Megumi TanakaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sendai City Medical Center, Sendai, Japan.
Tomohiro ShimadaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sendai City Medical Center, Sendai, Japan.
Fumisato KozakaiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sendai City Medical Center, Sendai, Japan.
Kazuki EndoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sendai City Medical Center, Sendai, Japan.
Haruka OkanoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sendai City Medical Center, Sendai, Japan.
Daichi KomabayashiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sendai City Medical Center, Sendai, Japan.
Takeshi ShimizuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sendai City Medical Center, Sendai, Japan.
Shohei SuzukiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sendai City Medical Center, Sendai, Japan.
Kei ItoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sendai City Medical Center, Sendai, Japan.
Sendai Medical Center · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsThe aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of sedation with propofol as an alternative to benzodiazepine drugs in outpatient endoscopy.

methodsIn this prospective study, examinees who underwent outpatient endoscopy under propofol sedation and submitted a nextday questionnaire with providing informed consent were evaluated. Periprocedural acute responses, late adverse events within 24 hours, and examinee satisfaction were evaluated.

resultsAmong the 4,122 patients who received propofol in the 17,978 outpatient-based endoscopic examinations performed between November 2016 and March 2018, 2,305 eligible examinees (esophagogastroduodenoscopy for 1,340, endoscopic ultrasonography for 945, and total colonoscopy for 20) were enrolled, and their responses to a questionnaire were analyzed. The mean propofol dose was 69.6±24.4 mg (range, 20-200 mg). Diazepam, midazolam, and/or pentazocine in combination with propofol was administered to 146 examinees. Mild oxygen desaturation was observed in 59 examinees (2.6%); and mild bradycardia, in 2 (0.09%). Other severe reactions or late events did not occur. After eliminating 181 invalid responses, 97.7% (2,065/2,124) of the patients desired propofol sedation in future examinations.

conclusionPropofol sedation was found to be safe-without severe adverse events or accidents-for outpatient endoscopy on the basis of the patients' next-day self-evaluation. Given the high satisfaction level, propofol sedation might be an ideal tool for painless endoscopic screening.

Indexed as

Cancer screeningEndoscopic ultrasonographyEsophagogastroduodenoscopyPropofolSedation

Identifiers

PMID33302328
PMCPMC8182244
OpenAlexW3110896608

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.