Propofol vs traditional sedatives for sedation in endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 11, Issue 12

Peer-Review Report of This Article

CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article

Academic Rules and Norms of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

ISSN

1948-5190

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Meta-Analysis

World J Gastrointest Endosc. Dec 16, 2019; 11(12): 573-588
Published online Dec 16, 2019. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v11.i12.573

Full Size Figure Download Figure

Figure 1 Flow diagram of included and excluded clinical trials.

Citation: Delgado AAA, de Moura DTH, Ribeiro IB, Bazarbashi AN, dos Santos MEL, Bernardo WM, de Moura EGH. Propofol vs traditional sedatives for sedation in endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 11(12): 573-588
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5190/full/v11/i12/573.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v11.i12.573

Delgado AAA, de Moura DTH, Ribeiro IB, Bazarbashi AN, dos Santos MEL, Bernardo WM, de Moura EGH. Propofol vs traditional sedatives for sedation in endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 11(12): 573-588 [PMID: 31839876 DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v11.i12.573]

All content on this site: Copyright © 1993-2026 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, its licensors, and contributors. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies. For all open access content, the relevant licensing terms apply.