Cochrane · systematic review · CD007399
The use of propofol for procedural sedation in emergency departments
Wakai, A, Blackburn, C, McCabe, A, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2015 · Cochrane Library
Emergency and Critical CareAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
3
current version
GRADE rated
3
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 3 · 100%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Intravenous propofol compared with alternative intravenous sedative or hypnotic for emergency department procedural sedation
Population: emergency department procedural sedation
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Adverse effects (as defined by study authors) Intravenous propofol vs alternative intravenous sedative or hypnotic | no estimate extracted | 7 studies · 527 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, publication bias |
Participant satisfaction (as defined by study authors) Intravenous propofol vs alternative intravenous sedative or hypnotic | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 413 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, publication bias |
Pain with injection Intravenous propofol vs alternative intravenous sedative or hypnotic | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 193 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, publication bias |