ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
Long-Term Satisfaction of Oral Sedation versus Standard-of-Care Intravenous Sedation for Ocular Surgery.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Long-term patient satisfaction may influence patients' perspectives of the quality of care and their relationship with their providers. This is a follow up to a comparative effectiveness study investigating oral to intravenous sedation (OIV study). The OIV study found that oral sedation was noninferior in patient satisfaction to standard intravenous (IV) sedation for anterior segment and vitreoretinal surgeries. This study aims to determine if patient satisfaction with oral sedation remained noninferior long term. Patients and Methods: Patients were re-interviewed using the same satisfaction survey given during the OIV study. Statistical analysis involved t-tests for noninferiority of the long-term mean satisfaction score of oral and IV sedation. We also compared the original mean satisfaction score and the follow-up mean satisfaction score for each type of sedation and for both groups combined. Results: Participants were interviewed at a median of 1225.5 days (range 754-1675 days) from their surgery. The original mean satisfaction score was 5.26 ± 0.79 for the oral treatment group (n = 52) and 5.27 ± 0.64 for the intravenous treatment group (n = 46), demonstrating noninferiority with a difference in mean satisfaction score of 0.015 (p < 0.0001). The follow-up mean satisfaction score was 5.23 ± 0.90 for oral sedation and 5.60 ± 0.61 for IV sedation, with a difference in the mean satisfaction score of 0.371 (p = 0.2071). Satisfaction scores did not differ between the original mean satisfaction score and the follow-up mean satisfaction score for the oral treatment group alone (p = 0.8367), but scores in the intravenous treatment group increased longitudinally (p = 0.0004). Conclusion: In this study, long-term patient satisfaction with oral sedation was not noninferior to satisfaction with IV sedation, unlike our findings with short-term patient satisfaction in our original study. Patient satisfaction also remained unchanged over time for the oral treatment group, but patients in the intravenous treatment group reported higher long-term satisfaction with their anesthesia experience compared to the immediate post-operative period.
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.