Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38495522›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024

Propofol sedation does not improve measures of colonoscopy quality but increase cost - findings from a large population-based cohort study.

Sheikh Rahman, Lauren E Cipriano, Cassandra McDonald, Sarah Cocco, Ziad Hindi, Debarati Chakraborty, Karissa French, Omar Siddiqi, Mayur Brahmania, Aze Wilson and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Reality check-an urgent call for innovation in Canadian anesthesia care delivery.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2024
    Article
  6. Review
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

14 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Sheikh RahmanDivision of Gastroenterology, London Health Sciences Centre, Canada.
Lauren E CiprianoSchulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, Canada.
Cassandra McDonaldSchulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, Canada.
Sarah CoccoSchulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, Canada.
Ziad HindiDivision of Gastroenterology, London Health Sciences Centre, Canada.
Debarati ChakrabortyDepartment of Medicine, Western University, Canada.
Karissa FrenchDepartment of Pathology, Western University, Canada.
Omar SiddiqiThe Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Medical University of Bahrain, Bahrain.
Mayur BrahmaniaDivision of Gastroenterology, London Health Sciences Centre, Canada.
Aze WilsonDivision of Gastroenterology, London Health Sciences Centre, Canada.
Brian YanDivision of Gastroenterology, London Health Sciences Centre, Canada.
Leonardo GuizzettiIndependent Researcher, Canada.
Vipul JairathDivision of Gastroenterology, London Health Sciences Centre, Canada.
Michael SeyDivision of Gastroenterology, London Health Sciences Centre, Canada.
Western University · CALondon Health Sciences Centre · CARoyal College of Surgeons in Ireland - Bahrain · BH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Propofol is often used for sedation during colonoscopy. We assessed the impact of propofol sedation on colonoscopy related quality metrics and cost in a population-based cohort study. Methods: All colonoscopies performed at 21 hospitals in the province of Ontario, Canada, during an 18-month period, from April 1, 2017 to October 31, 2018, using either propofol or conscious sedation were evaluated. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR) and secondary outcomes were sessile serrated polyp detection rate (ssPDR), polyp detection rate (PDR), cecal intubation rate (CIR), and perforation rate. Binary outcomes were assessed using a modified Poisson regression model adjusted for clustering and potential confounders based on patient, procedure, and physician characteristics. Findings: A total of 46,634 colonoscopies were performed, of which 16,408 (35.2%) received propofol and 30,226 (64.8%) received conscious sedation. Compared to conscious sedation, the use of propofol was associated with a lower ADR (24.6% vs. 27.0%, p < 0.0001) but not ssPDR (5.0% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.26), PDR (40.5% vs 40.4%, p = 0.79), CIR (97.1% vs. 96.8%, p = 0.15) or perforation rate (0.04% vs. 0.06%, p = 0.45). On multi-variable analysis, propofol sedation was not associated with any differences in ADR (RR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.74-1.10, p = 0.30), ssPDR (RR = 1.20, 95% CI 0.90-1.60, p = 0.22), PDR (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.90-1.11, p = 0.99), or CIR (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.80-1.26, p = 0.99). The additional cost associated with propofol sedation was $12,730,496 for every 100,000 cases. Interpretation: The use of propofol sedation was not associated with improved colonoscopy related quality metrics but increased costs. The routine use of propofol for colonoscopy should be reevaluated. Funding: None.

Indexed as

Adenoma detection rateColonoscopyPropofolQuality assurance

Identifiers

PMID38495522
PMCPMC10940905
OpenAlexW4392631001

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.