Letters, Techniques and Images
Reply to Letter: Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy
Toshihiro Nishizawa,
Toshihiro Nishizawa
Division of Research and Development for Minimally Invasive Treatment, Cancer Center, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
Search for more papers by this author Hidekazu Suzuki,
Hidekazu Suzuki
Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
Search for more papers by this author
Toshihiro Nishizawa,
Toshihiro Nishizawa
Division of Research and Development for Minimally Invasive Treatment, Cancer Center, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
Search for more papers by this author Hidekazu Suzuki,
Hidekazu Suzuki
Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
Search for more papers by this author
First published: 10 February 2015
No abstract is available for this article.
References
- 1Nishizawa T, Suzuki H, Sagara S, Kanai T, Yahagi N. Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy: A meta-analysis. Dig. Endosc. 2015; 27: 8–15.
- 2Urushidani S, Kuriyama A. Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy (Letter). Dig. Endosc. 2015; Published online: 15 Feb 2015; DOI:10.1111/den.12447
- 3Qadeer MA, Vargo JJ, Khandwala F, Lopez R, Zuccaro G. Propofol versus traditional sedative agents for gastrointestinal endoscopy: A meta-analysis. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2005; 3: 1049–1056.
- 4Wang D, Chen C, Chen J et al. The use of propofol as a sedative agent in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2013; 8: e53311.
