ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology
Choice of sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: is monitored anesthesia care as safe as general anesthesia? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of gastroenterology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pharmacological sedation strategies for therapeutic gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of Remimazolam and Propofol for Sedation in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2025Pooled it
- The 90% effective dose (ED90) of remimazolam for inhibiting responses to the insertion of a duodenoscope during ERCP.BMC anesthesiology · 2024Trial
- New Trends in Airway Management During Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Comparison of Conscious and Deep Sedation Methods in Terms of Pulmonary Complications in ERCP Procedures of Patients with Billroth II Gastrectomy: A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Assessing Sedation Depth with PSI in Elderly ERCP Patients: A Prospective Cohort Study.Clinical interventions in aging · 2025Article
- Propofol versus Dexmedetomidine for Sedation of Cancer Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: Randomized Single-Blinded Controlled Study.Anesthesiology and pain medicine · 2024Article
- Comparing sedation protocols for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): A retrospective study.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Article
- Safety and efficacy of remifentanil-propofol combination on "muscle relaxant-free" general anesthesia for therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a randomized controlled trial.American journal of translational research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMonitored anesthesia care (MAC) and general anesthesia (GA) are the 2 most common methods of sedation used for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the overall safety between MAC vs. GA in ERCP.
methodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases to identify studies reporting the use of MAC or GA as a choice of sedation for ERCP. The primary outcome was to compare the overall rate of sedation-related adverse events in MAC vs. GA groups. The secondary endpoint was to investigate the total duration of the procedure, recovery time, ERCP cannulation rates, and conversion rate of MAC to GA. The meta-analysis was performed using a Der Simonian and Laird random-effects model.
resultsA total of 21 studies reporting on 11,592 patients were included. The overall sedation-related side-effects were similar in the GA (12.76%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.80-21.73; I
conclusionsIn our meta-analysis, the overall sedation-related side-effects were similar between the MAC and GA groups. MAC could be used as a safer alternative to GA when performing ERCP. However, large multicenter randomized control trials are needed to further validate our findings.
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.