Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35172747›Full record

Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2022

Comparison of propofol-nalbuphine and propofol-fentanyl sedation for patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

Peiqi Wang, Yan Chen, Ying Guo, Jiangbei Cao, Hong Wang, Weidong Mi, Longhe Xu

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Peiqi WangDepartment of Anaesthesiology, The First Medical Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, China.
Yan ChenDepartment of Anaesthesiology, The First Medical Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, China.
Ying GuoDepartment of Anaesthesiology, The First Medical Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, China.
Jiangbei CaoDepartment of Anaesthesiology, The First Medical Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, China.
Hong WangDepartment of Anaesthesiology, The First Medical Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, China.
Weidong Mi *Department of Anaesthesiology, The First Medical Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, China. wwdd1962@aliyun.com.
Longhe Xu *Department of Anaesthesiology, The First Medical Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, China. longhexu301@aliyun.com.
Chinese PLA General Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has been increasingly used to treat patients with biliary/pancreatic duct obstruction or stricture outside the operating room. Effective and safe sedation techniques are needed because of painful stimuli and the long duration of the ERCP procedure.Nalbuphine has been shown to cause less respiratory depression during sedation than similar cases without nalbuphine. This study compared the effects of propofol-nalbuphine (PN) and propofol-fentanyl (PF) sedation in patients undergoing ERCP.

methodsFour hundred patients scheduled for ERCP procedures were divided into two groups: the PF group (receiving PF sedation,n = 199) and the PN group (receiving PN sedation,n = 201). Vital signs, adverse events during surgery, patient movement scores, pain scores, and adverse events one day post-ERCP were recorded.

resultsStable haemodynamics were observed in both groups.Compared to the PF group, the PN group showed significantly decreased respiratory depression (P < 0.0001) and surgical interruptions (P = 0.048).Nalbuphine decreased patient movement by reducing pain from ERCP.

conclusionNalbuphine, instead of fentanyl, precipitated less respiratory depression while permitting adequate/equivalent sedation for ERCP and therefore provides more efficient and safer sedation. Trial registration ChiCTR, ChiCTR1800016018, Registered 7 May 2018, http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=27085.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAnalgesics, OpioidAnesthetics, IntravenousCholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeDouble-Blind MethodFemaleFentanylHumansMaleMiddle AgedNalbuphinePropofolProspective StudiesRespirationYoung AdultAnalgesics, OpioidAnesthetics, IntravenousFentanylNalbuphinePropofolAdverse effectsERCPFentanylNalbuphineSedation

Identifiers

PMID35172747
PMCPMC8848940
OpenAlexW4213267821

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.