ArticleCurrent health sciences journal
Comparative Study of Moderate Sedation with Propofol Versus Propofol Combined with Midazolam for Ambulatory Care Digestive Endoscopic Procedures.
Article in Current health sciences journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Propofol alone versus midazolam plus propofol for sedation in outpatient endoscopic procedures: A randomized controlled trial.Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anesthesia is essential during colonoscopy because it provides patients with necessary sedation to perform the investigation safely and nonetheless to obtain the highest quality of the results. We aimed here to evaluate and establish which of the combinations of anesthetic drugs most frequently used for sedation purposes for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures performed in the ambulatory best covers the needs of the patient and the gastroenterologist. This is a prospective, randomized, double-blind study carried out on a total of 100 patients, aged between 18 and 80 years, who meet the conditions for inclusion in the study. Patients were randomly allocated into either group A (Propofol) or group B (Midazolam plus Propofol). Evaluation of the dose of Propofol used in the 2 groups, awakening time, anesthetic induction, as well as the occurrence of episodes of bradycardia and hypotension represented the parameters followed in the study. In group A, 50 patients received on average 218.6mg of Propofol in bolus of 10-20mg. In group B, 50 patients received 0.1mg/kg Midazolam and an average of up to 129.2mg of Propofol in bolus of 10-20mg. Awakening time was shorter in group A-3.18 minutes, than in group B-15.7 minutes. Bradycardia and hypotension were met in a larger number in group B than in group A. The quality of the endoscopic evaluation was similar in both groups. The conclusion of our study was that the group to which only Propofol was administered had the best results from all aspects (rapid anesthetic induction, stability of vital functions, lower cost, awakening time much faster) compared to the combination of Propofol with Midazolam.
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.