ArticleMultidisciplinary respiratory medicine2026
Sedation Practices in Interventional Pulmonology (SEDIP): Results of an Italian Cross-Sectional Survey.
Article in Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSedation has become an essential component of modern interventional pulmonology, accompanying the progressive expansion of bronchoscopic procedures from conventional diagnostic bronchoscopy to advanced diagnostic and therapeutic airway interventions. Despite its increasing relevance, sedation practices remain heterogeneous, and dedicated national recommendations specifically addressing interventional pulmonology are still lacking in many countries.
methodsA national cross-sectional survey was conducted among physicians involved in interventional pulmonology practice through the Accademia di Ecografia Toracica (ADET) network. The questionnaire consisted of 29 structured items covering organizational models, pharmacological strategies, monitoring approaches, and safety-related aspects of procedural sedation. Responses were analyzed descriptively using proportions, medians, and interquartile ranges. Agreement was operationally defined as a Likert score of 4-5 in at least 70% of responses.
resultsForty-one responses were included in the final analysis. Sedation was routinely integrated into procedural activity in most centers, although relevant variability emerged regarding sedation management, monitoring practices, and anesthesiology involvement. The strongest agreement concerned the need for national recommendations to standardize sedation practices (80.5% agreement), followed by recognition that anesthesiologist presence is required during high-risk interventional procedures (73.2%). Substantial agreement emerged regarding pulmonologist-led moderate sedation in selected settings (68.3%), while capnography did not reach clear consensus (44.7%). Limited anesthesia availability was considered a relevant organizational factor by 63.2% of respondents.
conclusionsAmong participating clinicians, sedation was widely integrated into routine interventional pulmonology practice but remained organizationally heterogeneous. The survey identified broad agreement regarding the need for national harmonization and dedicated anesthesiology support for high-risk procedures. Given the network-based recruitment strategy and the absence of procedural volume data, these findings should be considered exploratory and hypothesis-generating rather than fully representative of national practice.
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.