| Title |
Propofol-alfentanyl versus midazolam-alfentanyl in inducing procedural amnesia of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in children—blind randomised trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Pediatrics, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00431-015-2555-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Edyta Sienkiewicz, Piotr Albrecht, Janusz Ziółkowski, Piotr Dziechciarz |
| Abstract |
In paediatric patients, esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is commonly performed with the use of sedation. The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of propofol and midazolam in providing procedural amnesia and controlling behaviour in children undergoing diagnostic EGD. Children (9-16 years), classified to the first or second class of the American Society of Anaesthesiologists' physical status classification referred for EGD, were randomly assigned to receive propofol with alfentanyl or midazolam with alfentanyl for sedation during the procedure. Within 120 min after the procedure, patients were repeatedly investigated for memory of the procedure and for memory of pain intensity during EGD with the use of the visual analogue scale. Activity and cooperation of the patient during the procedure was assessed with the relative adequacy scale. Of the 51 children, 48 completed the study. Propofol was significantly better than midazolam in inducing amnesia of procedural pain (mean difference 11.53 mm; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.96 to 22.10), loss of memory of the procedure (relative risk 0.4; 95 % CI 0.21 to 0.59) and controlling behaviour (relative risk 2.12; 95 % CI 1.33 to 3.36). In children sedated for EGD, propofol is significantly better than midazolam at providing procedural amnesia and controlling behaviour during the procedure. What is known: • There is still the matter of debate what is the most safe and effective way to provide sedation for paediatric esophagogastroduodenoscopy in children. What is new: • In children sedated for gastroduodensocopy propofol is significantly better than midazolam at providing amnesia, reported procedural pain and controlling behaviour during the procedure. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 4 | 80% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 54 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 11% |
| Researcher | 5 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 13 | 24% |
| Unknown | 18 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 30% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 7% |
| Psychology | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 18 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 May 2015.
All research outputs
#7,358,011
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Pediatrics
#1,431
of 3,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,222
of 263,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Pediatrics
#14
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,696 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,982 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.