ArticleDEN open2026
Impact of Non-Anesthesiologist-Administered Propofol Sedation for Outpatient Endoscopy in the Healthcare System.
Article in DEN 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.
- Effects of white and pink noise administered before and during colonoscopy on pain and anxiety: a randomized controlled trial.Surgical endoscopy · 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) sedation for outpatient endoscopy has proven to be safe. However, implementing NAAP in Western countries faces challenges, and propofol-based sedation is still largely administered by anesthetists. For low-risk patients, anesthesiologist-administered propofol (AAP) could represent an avoidable waste of healthcare resources. Methods: This research consisted of two phases. The first is a retrospective study comparing NAAP and AAP for outpatient endoscopy at a tertiary center, with the primary outcome being the rate of adverse events (AEs). Propensity score matching was performed to balance baseline characteristics between the two groups. The second phase involved a budget impact model to assess the economic impact of using NAAP instead of AAP for low-risk patients, both locally and nationally, between 2023 and 2025. Results: Between May 2019 and November 2021, 2721 patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGDs; NAAP 2439 and AAP 282) and 2748 colonoscopies (NAAP 2491 and AAP 257) were enrolled. Overall, the AE rates were similar between the cohorts (esophagogastroduodenoscopies: NAAP 1.1% vs. AAP 0.8%, Conclusion: NAAP has a comparable AE rate to AAP for low-risk outpatient endoscopy. Implementing NAAP instead of AAP could save over €100 million and 2000 working days for the Italian NHS between 2023 and 2025. Wider adoption could improve healthcare resource allocation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.