2011
DOI: 10.1097/eja.0b013e328348a9db
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Guidelines on non-anaesthesiologist administration of propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
9
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Even the cited consensus statement only mentions the FDA approval as sole argument for this view [19]. In a commentary of anesthesiologists from national societies who did not participate in this statement, the statement itself is marked as populist and fundamentalist [20].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Even the cited consensus statement only mentions the FDA approval as sole argument for this view [19]. In a commentary of anesthesiologists from national societies who did not participate in this statement, the statement itself is marked as populist and fundamentalist [20].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…In der Zusammenschau aller Ergebnisse zeigt unsere Umfrage, dass sich seit Einführung einer doch auch heftig kritisierten und diskutierten Leitlinie [30,31] viele Strukturen und Prozesse im Sinne der S3-Leitlinie verbessert haben. Dass gerade auch im Rahmen begrenzter Möglichkeiten durchaus Optimierungen möglich sind, zeigt bspw.…”
Section: Fazitunclassified
“…And, as noted in the ESA retraction of their endorsement [1], "Following evaluation of the scientific evidence by the ESA guidelines committee, the Board of Directors of the ESA decided unanimously to endorse the report." We are astonished that the ESA endorsement of the Guideline was withdrawn for political reasons and not on the basis on new evidence that contradicted the Guideline [6]. We understand that there are two strands of opinion in the ESA, one supporting and the other opposing the Guideline [6].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We are astonished that the ESA endorsement of the Guideline was withdrawn for political reasons and not on the basis on new evidence that contradicted the Guideline [6]. We understand that there are two strands of opinion in the ESA, one supporting and the other opposing the Guideline [6]. Endorsement of a guideline should be retracted if new evidence appears that contradicts the Guideline.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%