SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Comparison of propofol fentanyl versus propofol ketamine for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Propofol-based sedation is widely used for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures because of its rapid onset and recovery profile. However, adjunct agents are required to improve procedural tolerance and reduce propofol-related cardiorespiratory adverse effects. Ketamine and fentanyl are among the most commonly combined agents, but their comparative performance in gastrointestinal endoscopy remains unclear. This review compared propofol-ketamine with propofol-fentanyl for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods: Systematic search of major electronic databases was conducted from inception to March 2026. Study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment were performed independently by reviewers using standard methodologies. Due to substantial heterogeneity in study population, procedure, sedation protocol, and outcome definition, findings were synthesized narratively. Outcomes of interest included additional propofol requirement, oxygen desaturation, total propofol dose, systolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure, and time to recovery. Results: 21 studies were included. Across included studies, propofol-ketamine required fewer supplemental propofol doses and lower overall propofol consumption than propofol-fentanyl. Oxygen desaturation tended to occur less frequently with propofol-ketamine in most studies, although definition varied. Hemodynamic outcomes favoured propofol-ketamine, with better control of systolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure. Recovery findings were less consistent as several studies suggested longer recovery with ketamine-containing regimens, whereas other studies found no difference. Conclusion: Propofol-ketamine might provide better respiratory and hemodynamic stability and propofol-sparing effect compared with propofol-fentanyl during gastrointestinal endoscopy, although recovery may be slower in fewer settings.
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.