ArticleEndoscopy international open2026
Patient-reported experience in device-assisted enteroscopy: Conscious sedation vs. general anesthesia.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 2026. 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.
- Device-assisted enteroscopy: With increasing requirements, national Irish data support a centralized high-volume model to achieve performance targets.Endoscopy international open · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and study aims: Device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) plays a critical role in evaluation and treatment of small bowel disorders, with double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) being the most widely used technique. Sedation strategies for enteroscopy remain a topic of debate, with conscious sedation (CS) and general anesthesia (GA) both being utilized. Our aim was to assess patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) for DAE, comparing CS and GA to determine their impact on patient satisfaction, procedure success, and pain perception. Patients and methods: PREMs were prospectively collected from 118 unselected patients referred to a single center for DAE between July 2022 and March 2025. PREMs, procedure details, and sedation techniques were analyzed. Results: Overall patient satisfaction was good with 100% being satisfied or very satisfied. A significantly higher proportion in the GA group reporting being "very satisfied, (92.3% GA vs 71.0% CS, Conclusions: Although GA provides optimal conditions for enteroscopy, in our experience, CS remains an effective and acceptable option for patients, maintaining accessibility to the procedure. Our study supports use of PREMs in enteroscopy as a quality assurance measure and underscores the need for individualized sedation strategies to optimize patient care.
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.