Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 1 Recovery time.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 1 Recovery time.

Study

Group A

Group B

Group C

Comments

Kulling 2001

45 min: 0 (IQR ‐0.5 ‐0.5)
90 min: 0 (IQR ‐ 1.0 ‐0.5)

In between A and C
Not significantly different from either A or C

45 min: 1.0 (IQR 0.0 ‐9.0)
90 min: 0.25 (IQR 0.0 ‐ 1.5)

Difference from baseline of the score on Triegger dot‐joining test. Less difference, better recovery. Recovery‐‐therefore better recovery in Group A (PCS propofol), as compared with C at 45 and 90 mins

Liu 2009

2.5 (0‐15.0)

0 (0‐7.5)

No group C in this study

Recovery time was reported as median (minutes) and range. Recovery time was s ignificantly longer in group A (p<0.0001)

Martinez‐Palli 2005

24

38

32

No measures of variance provided

Paspatis 2002

5 min: 9.5±0.6
10 min: 9.8±0.3
30 min: 9.9±0.1

5 min: 8.3±1.3
10 min: 8.5±1
30 min: 7.4±0.9

No group C in this study

Significantly higher Aldrete scores at 5, 10 and 30 minutes in Group A (Propofol)

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 2 Recovery time (minutes) in studies, which reported recovery time in formats which could not be meta‐analyzyed.

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 3 Discharge time.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 3 Discharge time.

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 4 Procedure duration.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 4 Procedure duration.

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 5 Cecal intubation.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 5 Cecal intubation.

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 6 Patient Dissatisfication (dichotomous data).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 6 Patient Dissatisfication (dichotomous data).

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 7 Patient Satisfication (continuous data).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 7 Patient Satisfication (continuous data).

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 8 Patient Dissatisfication (combined).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 8 Patient Dissatisfication (combined).

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 9 Pain Control (continuous outcome).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 9 Pain Control (continuous outcome).

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 10 Pain Control (dichotomous outcome).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 10 Pain Control (dichotomous outcome).

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 11 Pain Control (combined).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 11 Pain Control (combined).

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 12 Hypoxia.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 12 Hypoxia.

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 13 Apnea.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 13 Apnea.

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 14 Respiratory depression requiring intervention.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 14 Respiratory depression requiring intervention.

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 15 Arrhythmias.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 15 Arrhythmias.

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 16 Hypotension.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 16 Hypotension.

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 17 Blood pressure drop or lowest blood pressure during the procedure.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.17

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 17 Blood pressure drop or lowest blood pressure during the procedure.

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 18 Colonic perforations.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.18

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 18 Colonic perforations.

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 19 Sedation (failure to sedate).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.19

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 19 Sedation (failure to sedate).

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 20 Sedation.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.20

Comparison 1 Propofol Versus Traditional Agents, Outcome 20 Sedation.

Study

Gastroenterologist

Anesthesiologist

Comments

Laquiere 2006

Average score on VAS= 90.8

Average score on VAS= 89

Not significantly different

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Non‐anesthesiologist Versus Anesthesiologist, Outcome 1 Patient Satisfication.

Study

Gastroenterologist

Anesthesiologist

Comment

Laquiere 2006

16.7

17.7

No significant difference

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Non‐anesthesiologist Versus Anesthesiologist, Outcome 2 Procedure duration (minutes).

Study

Gastroenterologist

Anesthesiologist

Comment

Laquiere 2006

6.6%

35.5%

"Desaturation" not defined
No intervention required
p<0.008

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Non‐anesthesiologist Versus Anesthesiologist, Outcome 3 Hypoxia.

Study

Gastroenterologist

Anesthesiologist

Comment

Laquiere 2006

24.4%

44%

Hypotension not defined
No intervention required
p<0.008

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Non‐anesthesiologist Versus Anesthesiologist, Outcome 4 Hypotension.

Comparison 1. Propofol Versus Traditional Agents

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Recovery time Show forest plot

11

776

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐16.59 [‐24.99, ‐8.18]

1.1 Propofol alone

4

249

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐14.68 [‐19.79, ‐9.58]

1.2 Propofol combined with another agent

7

527

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐17.36 [‐29.39, ‐5.34]

2 Recovery time (minutes) in studies, which reported recovery time in formats which could not be meta‐analyzyed Show forest plot

Other data

No numeric data

3 Discharge time Show forest plot

7

542

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐20.86 [‐30.94, ‐10.78]

3.1 Propofol alone

4

297

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐19.06 [‐28.08, ‐10.04]

3.2 Propofol combined with another agent

3

245

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐32.17 [‐64.84, 0.50]

4 Procedure duration Show forest plot

9

736

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.84 [‐1.02, 2.71]

4.1 Propofol alone

2

168

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.98 [‐6.12, 2.17]

4.2 Propofol combined with another agent

7

568

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.85 [‐0.26, 3.97]

5 Cecal intubation Show forest plot

9

1840

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.41 [0.22, 0.76]

5.1 Propofol alone

3

268

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.2 Propofol combined with another agent

6

1572

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.41 [0.22, 0.76]

6 Patient Dissatisfication (dichotomous data) Show forest plot

6

449

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.22 [0.11, 0.44]

6.1 Propofol alone

2

117

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.25 [0.09, 0.72]

6.2 Propofol combined with another agent

4

332

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.19 [0.07, 0.50]

7 Patient Satisfication (continuous data) Show forest plot

4

370

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.43 [‐0.00, 0.85]

7.1 Propofol alone

3

220

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.50 [‐0.17, 1.17]

7.2 Propofol combined with another agent

1

150

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.32 [‐0.02, 0.66]

8 Patient Dissatisfication (combined) Show forest plot

7

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.23, 0.53]

8.1 Propofol Alone

4

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.18, 0.60]

8.2 Propofol combined with another agent

3

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.14, 0.80]

9 Pain Control (continuous outcome) Show forest plot

6

633

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.38 [0.03, 0.74]

9.1 Propofol alone

2

187

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.14 [‐0.53, 0.26]

9.2 Propofol combined with another agent

4

446

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.51 [0.17, 0.84]

10 Pain Control (dichotomous outcome) Show forest plot

5

344

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.12 [0.21, 5.97]

10.1 Propofol alone

3

220

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.20 [0.02, 1.79]

10.2 Propofol combined with another agent

2

124

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.64 [0.39, 18.04]

11 Pain Control (combined) Show forest plot

9

Odds Ratios (Random, 95% CI)

1.71 [1.02, 2.88]

11.1 Propofol Alone

3

Odds Ratios (Random, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.34, 1.33]

11.2 Propofol combined with another agent

6

Odds Ratios (Random, 95% CI)

2.27 [1.42, 3.63]

12 Hypoxia Show forest plot

15

1408

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.48, 1.31]

12.1 Propofol alone

5

407

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.69 [0.25, 1.89]

12.2 Propofol combined with another agent

10

1001

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.83 [0.47, 1.48]

13 Apnea Show forest plot

11

918

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.35 [0.56, 3.24]

13.1 Propofol alone

5

407

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.35 [0.56, 3.24]

13.2 Propofol combined with another agent

6

511

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

14 Respiratory depression requiring intervention Show forest plot

10

898

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.15, 2.89]

14.1 Propofol alone

3

268

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.01, 8.21]

14.2 Propofol combined with another agent

7

630

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.81 [0.16, 4.18]

15 Arrhythmias Show forest plot

7

684

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.70 [0.31, 1.55]

15.1 Propofol alone

3

220

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.09, 3.46]

15.2 Propofol combined with another agent

4

464

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.30, 1.80]

16 Hypotension Show forest plot

6

548

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.55, 1.71]

16.1 Propofol alone

2

144

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.28, 3.83]

16.2 Propofol combined with another agent

4

404

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.51, 1.79]

17 Blood pressure drop or lowest blood pressure during the procedure Show forest plot

5

494

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

2.19 [‐2.55, 6.94]

17.1 Propofol alone

2

199

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.45 [‐9.40, 10.30]

17.2 Propofol combined with another agent

3

295

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

3.63 [‐4.47, 11.72]

18 Colonic perforations Show forest plot

1

7286

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.87 [0.60, 13.83]

18.1 Propofol alone

1

7286

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.87 [0.60, 13.83]

18.2 Propofol combined with another agent

0

0

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

19 Sedation (failure to sedate) Show forest plot

2

277

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.03 [0.00, 1.43]

19.1 Propofol alone

1

99

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.20 [0.07, 0.60]

19.2 Propofol combined with another agent

1

178

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.00 [0.00, 0.01]

20 Sedation Show forest plot

6

521

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.41 [‐0.45, 1.27]

20.1 Propofol alone

3

268

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.38 [0.93, 1.82]

20.2 Propofol combined with another agent

3

253

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.53 [‐0.98, ‐0.09]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. Propofol Versus Traditional Agents
Comparison 2. Non‐anesthesiologist Versus Anesthesiologist

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Patient Satisfication Show forest plot

Other data

No numeric data

2 Procedure duration (minutes) Show forest plot

Other data

No numeric data

3 Hypoxia Show forest plot

Other data

No numeric data

4 Hypotension Show forest plot

Other data

No numeric data

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 2. Non‐anesthesiologist Versus Anesthesiologist