ArticleClinical endoscopy2024
Comparison of bispectral index-guided endoscopic ultrasonography with continuous vs. intermittent infusion of propofol: a retrospective study in Japan.
Article in Clinical endoscopy, 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsThis study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of continuous propofol infusion for anesthesia during endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS).
methodsA total of 427 consecutive patients who underwent EUS between May 2018 and February 2019 were enrolled in this study. The patients were divided into two propofol infusion groups: continuous (n=207) and intermittent (n=220). The following parameters were compared: (1) propofol dose, (2) respiratory and circulatory depression, (3) body movement requiring discontinuation of the examination, (4) awakening score, and (5) patient satisfaction.
resultsThe median total maintenance dose of propofol was significantly higher in the continuous group than in the intermittent group (160.0 mg vs. 130.0 mg, respectively); however, the reduction in SpO2 was significantly lower in the continuous group (2.9% vs. 13.2%). Body movements occurred less frequently in the continuous group than in the intermittent group (40.1% vs. 49.5%, respectively). The rate of complete awakening was significantly higher in the continuous group than in the intermittent group. Finally, there was a significant difference in the percentage of patients who answered "absolutely yes" when asked about receiving EUS again: 52.7% in the continuous group vs. 34.3% in the intermittent group.
conclusionsContinuous infusion resulted in stable sedation and reduced propofol-associated risks.
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.