The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Prospective audit of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in two regions of England: safety, staffing, and sedation methods.
Open accessAbstract
A prospective audit of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in 36 hospitals across two regions provided data from 14,149 gastroscopies of which 1113 procedures were therapeutic and 13,036 were diagnostic. Most patients received gastroscopy under intravenous sedation; midazolam was the preferred agent in the North West and diazepam was preferred in East Anglia. Mean doses of each agent used were 5.7 mg and 13.8 mg respectively, although there was a wide distribution of doses reported. Only half of the patients endoscoped had some form of intravenous access in situ and few were supplied with supplementary oxygen. The death rate from this study for diagnostic endoscopy was 1 in 2000 and the morbidity rate was 1 in 200; cardiorespiratory complications were the most prominent in this group and there was a strong relation between the lack of monitoring and use of high dose benzodiazepines and the occurrence of adverse outcomes. In particular there was a link between the use of local anaesthetic sprays and the development of pneumonia after gastroscopy (p < 0.001). Twenty perforations occurred out of a total of 774 dilatations of which eight patients died (death rate 1 in 100). A number of units were found to have staffing problems, to be lacking in basic facilities, and to have poor or virtually non-existent recovery areas. In addition, a number of junior endoscopists were performing endoscopy unsupervised and with minimal training.
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
Ludvigsson, J. F., Bai, J. C., Biagi, F., Card, T. R., Ciacci, C., Ciclitira, P. J., Green, P. H. R., Hadjivassiliou, M., Holdoway, A., van Heel, D. A., et al. (2014) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2013-306578 · Cited by 1,116
ACG and CAG Clinical Guideline: Management of Dyspepsia
Moayyedi, P. M., Lacy, B. E., Andrews, C. N., Enns, R. A., Howden, C. W., & Vakil, N. (2017) · American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1038/ajg.2017.154 · Cited by 689
A national study of cardiopulmonary unplanned events after GI endoscopy
Sharma, V. K., Nguyen, C. C., Crowell, M. D., Lieberman, D. A., de Garmo, P., & Fleischer, D. E. (2007) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1016/j.gie.2006.12.040 · Cited by 428
Update on Bispectral Index monitoring
Johansen, J. W. (2006) · Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology · doi:10.1016/j.bpa.2005.08.004 · Cited by 313
Propofol sedation with a target-controlled infusion pump in elderly patients undergoing ERCP
Ogawa, T., Tomoda, T., Kato, H., Akimoto, Y., Tanaka, S., & Okada, H. (2020) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1016/j.gie.2020.03.002 · Cited by 50
Metadata
- Authors
- Quine, M. A., Bell, G. D., McCloy, R. F., Charlton, J. E., Devlin, H. B., & Hopkins, A.
- Venue
- Gut
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1995-03-01
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 462-467
- ISSN
- 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1977231074
- Cited by
- 369
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Prospective audit of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in two regions of England: safety, staffing, and sedation methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gut.36.3.462
- The paper
- Quine, M. A., Bell, G. D., McCloy, R. F., Charlton, J. E., Devlin, H. B., & Hopkins, A. (1995). Prospective audit of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in two regions of England: safety, staffing, and sedation methods. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.36.3.462
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.