ArticleJournal of clinical imaging science2024
Comparison of periprocedural and procedure room times between moderate sedation and monitored anesthesia care in interventional radiology.
Article in Journal of clinical imaging science, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventional Radiologist-Directed Sedation Versus General Anesthesia for Percutaneous Biliary Drainage: Effects on Procedural Efficiency and Hemodynamic Stability.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: In recent years, there has been increased utilization of monitored anesthesia care (MAC) in interventional radiology (IR) departments. The purpose of this study was to compare pre-procedure bed, procedure room, and post-procedure bed times for IR procedures performed with either nurse-administered moderate sedation (MOSED) or MAC. Material and Methods: An institutional review board-approved single institution retrospective review of IR procedures between January 2010 and September 2022 was performed. Procedures performed with general anesthesia or local anesthetic only, missing time stamps, or where <50 cases were performed for both MAC and MOSED were excluded from the study. Pre-procedure bed, procedure room, post-procedure bed, and total IR encounter times were compared between MAC and MOSED using the Results: 97,480 cases spanning 69 procedure codes were examined. Mean time in pre-procedure bed was 27 min longer for MAC procedures (69 vs. 42 min, Conclusion: MAC improves the utilization of IR procedure rooms, but at the cost of increased patient time in the pre- and post-procedure areas.
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.