ArticleSaudi journal of anaesthesia
Propofol-Fentanyl versus propofol-ketamine sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Saudi journal of anaesthesia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pharmacological sedation strategies for therapeutic gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The optimal procedural sedation and analgesic regime for gastrointestinal endoscopy is uncertain. Ketamine and fentanyl are commonly used analgesic agents alongside propofol but both have significant side effect profiles. Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of propofol-ketamine (PK) to propofol-fentanyl (PF) sedation for patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods: Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched to identify all comparative studies comparing PF to PK sedation. Nine randomized control trials (RCTs) met inclusion criteria. The primary outcomes were procedure time and recovery time. Secondary outcomes included adverse effects. All outcome data analyses were conducted using random-effects modeling. Findings: Nine RCTs with a total of 1006 patients were analyzed (508 (50.5%) PF, 498 PK). Sedation-analgesia regimes with PF were associated with both shorter procedure times (mean difference (MD) = -1.670 minutes (95% CI, -2.890, -0.450); Conclusions: There is moderate certainty evidence that PF reduces procedure time and low certainty that it improves recovery time compared to PK for gastrointestinal endoscopy. The risk of potentially life-threatening hypotension and desaturation was significantly greater in the PF group.
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.