ArticleBMJ open2024
Nasal mask versus conventional oxygen supply for endoscopy under intravenous sedation: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHypoxaemia is a frequent complication associated with endoscopy conducted under intravenous sedation, highlighting the need for effective and practical interventions. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of nasal mask oxygenation in reducing the incidence of hypoxaemia during endoscopy under intravenous sedation compared with the conventional oxygen supply. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study strictly adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocol guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases will be electronically searched from their inception to May 2024 to identify randomised controlled trials comparing a nasal mask with conventional oxygen supply for endoscopy under intravenous sedation. The study selection, data extraction and quality assessment processes will be conducted independently by two reviewers. The risk of bias in the included studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials, and the strength of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation guidelines. The meta-analysis will be performed using STATA V.16.0, with effect sizes calculated using the standardised mean difference and 95% CI. Heterogeneity will be assessed using Cochran's Q statistics, and inconsistency will be measured using I ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The data used for this systematic review will be exclusively extracted from published studies. Additional ethical approval and informed consent are not required. This systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will be presented at conferences and congresses. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024545231.
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.