Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1177/2050640616688140 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1177/2050640616688140 C5676542!5676542!29163971     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       United+European+Gastroenterol+J 2017 ; 5 (7): 1037-45 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=29163971|t=2017. Dexmedetomidine vs propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy: A meta-analysis |pdf=|usr=}}{{29163971}} gab.com Text Dexmedetomidine vs propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy: A meta-analysis JO: United European Gastroenterol J http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=29163971 #FOAvip Background and aim: Several randomized controlled trials have compared sedation with dexmedetomidine and propofol in gastrointestinal endoscopy, with contradictory results. We conducted a meta-analysis of data from randomized controlled trials that compared dexmedetomidine with propofol. Methods: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the Igaku-chuo-zasshi database for randomized trials eligible for inclusion in our meta-analysis. We identified six eligible randomized trials from the database search, and compared the effect of propofol versus dexmedetomidine with respect to: (a) patient?s satisfaction level, (b) body movement or gagging, (c) cardiopulmonary complications, and (d) change in heart rate. Data from eligible studies were combined to calculate pooled risk difference (RD) or weighted mean difference (WMD). Results: Compared to propofol, dexmedetomidine significantly decreased the patient?s satisfaction level (WMD: ?0.678, 95% confidence interval (CI): ?1.149 to ?0.207, p?=?0.0048), and there was no significant heterogeneity among the trial results. The pooled RD for developing body movement or gagging when using dexmedetomidine was 0.107 (95% CI: ?0.09 to 0.305, p?=?0.288), with no significant differences. Compared with propofol, the pooled RD for hypotension, hypoxia, and bradycardia with dexmedetomidine sedation were ?0.029 (95% CI: ?0.11 to 0.05), ?0.080 (95% CI: ?0.178 to 0.018), and 0.022 (95% CI: ?0.027 to 0.07), respectively, with no significant differences. Compared to propofol, dexmedetomidine significantly decreased the heart rate (WMD: ?10.41, 95% CI: ?13.77 to ?7.051, p???0.0001), without significant heterogeneity. Conclusions: In gastrointestinal endoscopy, patient satisfaction level was higher in propofol administration, when compared to dexmedetomidine. The risk of complications was similar. Twit Text FOAVip Dexmedetomidine vs propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy: A meta-analysis ????United European Gastroenterol J http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=29163971 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=29163971 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|29163971}}</ref> Dexmedetomidine vs propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy: A meta-analysis #MMPMID29163971 Nishizawa T; Suzuki H; Hosoe N; Ogata H; Kanai T; Yahagi N United European Gastroenterol J 2017[Nov]; 5 (7): 1037-45 PMID29163971show ga Background and aim: Several randomized controlled trials have compared sedation with dexmedetomidine and propofol in gastrointestinal endoscopy, with contradictory results. We conducted a meta-analysis of data from randomized controlled trials that compared dexmedetomidine with propofol. Methods: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the Igaku-chuo-zasshi database for randomized trials eligible for inclusion in our meta-analysis. We identified six eligible randomized trials from the database search, and compared the effect of propofol versus dexmedetomidine with respect to: (a) patient?s satisfaction level, (b) body movement or gagging, (c) cardiopulmonary complications, and (d) change in heart rate. Data from eligible studies were combined to calculate pooled risk difference (RD) or weighted mean difference (WMD). Results: Compared to propofol, dexmedetomidine significantly decreased the patient?s satisfaction level (WMD: ?0.678, 95% confidence interval (CI): ?1.149 to ?0.207, p?=?0.0048), and there was no significant heterogeneity among the trial results. The pooled RD for developing body movement or gagging when using dexmedetomidine was 0.107 (95% CI: ?0.09 to 0.305, p?=?0.288), with no significant differences. Compared with propofol, the pooled RD for hypotension, hypoxia, and bradycardia with dexmedetomidine sedation were ?0.029 (95% CI: ?0.11 to 0.05), ?0.080 (95% CI: ?0.178 to 0.018), and 0.022 (95% CI: ?0.027 to 0.07), respectively, with no significant differences. Compared to propofol, dexmedetomidine significantly decreased the heart rate (WMD: ?10.41, 95% CI: ?13.77 to ?7.051, p???0.0001), without significant heterogeneity. Conclusions: In gastrointestinal endoscopy, patient satisfaction level was higher in propofol administration, when compared to dexmedetomidine. The risk of complications was similar. äDexmedetomidine vs propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy: A meta-ana(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing