SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Pharmacological sedation strategies for therapeutic gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Therapeutic gastrointestinal endoscopy, including endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic submucosal dissection, requires effective sedation strategies to ensure procedural success and patient safety. However, optimal pharmacological regimens remain unclear, particularly for prolonged procedures. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological sedation strategies in patients undergoing therapeutic gastrointestinal endoscopy. Outcomes included procedural interference events, hypoxia, hypotension, bradycardia, recovery time, induction time, satisfaction, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool, and certainty of evidence was rated using GRADE framework. A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis was conducted, along with cluster ranking of co-primary outcomes to evaluate benefit-risk trade-offs. Results: Sixty randomised controlled trials involving 7,071 patients and 32 pharmacological regimens were included. Compared with propofol-opioid, which remained the reference standard, no regimen significantly reduced procedural interference events. Ketamine-propofol demonstrated consistent advantages across hypoxia (relative risk [RR] 0.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.03 to 0.59, P = 0.009; moderate certainty), hypotension (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.83, P = 0.021; low certainty), and bradycardia (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.86, P = 0.035; moderate certainty). Cluster rank analyses identified ketamine-propofol and lidocaine-midazolam-propofol as the highest-ranking regimens in both efficacy and safety domains. Meta-regression revealed no significant effect modifiers. Conclusion: While propofol-opioid remains the standard reference, alternative sedation strategies such as ketamine-propofol and lidocaine-midazolam-propofol offer favourable profiles for therapeutic gastrointestinal endoscopy. These findings support individualised regimen selection based on patient and procedural needs. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD420251018215.
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.