The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Endoscopic Sedation in the United States: Results from a Nationwide Survey
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The introduction of new sedative agents as well as a desire for improved patient satisfaction and greater efficiency has changed the practice of endoscopic sedation. This survey was designed to provide national and regional data on endoscopic sedation and monitoring practices within the United States. METHODS: A 22-item survey regarding current practices of endoscopy and sedation was mailed to 5,000 American College of Gastroenterology physician members nationwide. RESULTS: A total of 1,353 questionnaires (27.1%) were returned. Respondents performed an average of 12.3 esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGDs) and 22.3 colonoscopies per wk. Endoscopic procedures were performed within a hospital setting (55.2) more often than at an ambulatory center (35.8%) or private office (8.8%). The vast majority of EGDs and colonoscopies (>98%) were performed with endoscopic sedation. Almost three quarters (74.3%) of the respondents used a narcotic and benzodiazepine for sedation, while propofol was preferred by 25.7%. Sedation practices varied considerably within different geographic regions of the United States. Respondents routinely monitored vital signs and pulse oximetry (99.2% and 98.6%, respectively), and supplemental oxygen was administered to all patients during EGD by 72.7% of endoscopists. Endoscopist satisfaction with sedation was greater among those using propofol than conventional sedation (10 vs 8, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: During the past 15 yr, the volume of procedures performed by endoscopists in the United States has increased two- to fourfold. Propofol is currently being used for sedation in approximately one quarter of all endoscopies in the United States. The findings from this survey may help in the formulation of updated policies and practice guidelines pertaining to endoscopic sedation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Sedation and anesthesia in GI endoscopy
Lichtenstein, D. R., Jagannath, S., Baron, T. H., Anderson, M. A., Banerjee, S., Dominitz, J. A., Fanelli, R. D., Gan, S. I., Harrison, M. E., Ikenberry, S. O., et al. (2008) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1016/j.gie.2008.09.029 · Cited by 447
Efficacy and safety of remimazolam in endoscopic sedation-A systematic review and meta-analysis
Zhu, X., Wang, H., Yuan, S., Li, Y., Jia, Y., Zhang, Z., Yan, F., & Wang, Z. (2021) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2021.655042 · Cited by 75
Dossa, F., Medeiros, B., Keng, C., Acuna, S. A., & Baxter, N. N. (2020) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1016/j.gie.2019.12.047 · Cited by 56
Liu, F., Cheng, X., Wang, Y., Li, K., Peng, T., Fang, N., Pasunooti, K. K., Jun, S., Yang, X., & Wu, J. (2023) · Frontiers in Pharmacology · doi:10.3389/fphar.2023.1131391 · Cited by 42
Induction and maintenance of procedural sedation in adults: focus on remimazolam injection
Chen, W., Chen, S., & Huang, Y. (2021) · Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology · doi:10.1080/17512433.2021.1901575 · Cited by 25
Metadata
- Authors
- Cohen, L. B., Wecsler, J. S., Gaetano, J. N., Benson, A. A., Miller, K. M., Durkalski, V., & Aisenberg, J.
- Venue
- The American Journal of Gastroenterology
- Published
- 2006-05
- Volume
- 101
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 967-974
- ISSN
- 0002-9270 (ISSN-L)
- 1572-0241
- OpenAlex
- W2069246764
- Cited by
- 574
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 26.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Endoscopic Sedation in the United States: Results from a Nationwide Survey. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00500.x
- The paper
- Cohen, L. B., Wecsler, J. S., Gaetano, J. N., Benson, A. A., Miller, K. M., Durkalski, V., & Aisenberg, J. (2006). Endoscopic Sedation in the United States: Results from a Nationwide Survey. The American Journal of Gastroenterology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00500.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.