SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Systematic Review”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 379 records · Page 21Linked to original sources

PubMed2001

Behavioral treatment for chronic low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Back Review Group.

STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The treatment of chronic low back pain is not primarily focused on removing an underlying organic disease but at the reduction of disability through the modification of environmental contingencies and cognitive processes. Behavioral interventions are commonly used in the treatment of chronic (disabling) low back pain. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether behavioral therapy is more effective than reference treatments for chronic nonspecific low back pain and which type of behavioral treatment is most effective. METHODS: The authors searched the Medline and PsychLit databases and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to April 1999, and Embase up to September 1999. Also screened were references of identified randomized trials and relevant systematic reviews. Methodologic quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. The magnitude of effect was assessed by computing a pooled effect size for each domain (i.e., behavioral outcomes, overall improvement, back pain-specific and generic functional status, return to work, and pain intensity) using the random effects model. RESULTS: Only six (25%) studies were high quality. There is strong evidence (level 1) that behavioral treatment has a moderate positive effect on pain intensity (pooled effect size 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25, 0.98), and small positive effects on generic functional status (pooled effect size 0.35; 95% CI: -0.04, 0.74) and behavioral outcomes (pooled effect size 0.40; 95% CI: 0.10, 0.70) of patients with chronic low back pain when compared with waiting-list controls or no treatment. There is moderate evidence (level 2) that a addition of behavioral component to a usual treatment program for chronic low backpain has no positive short-term effect on generic functional status (pooled effect size 0.31; 95% CI: -0.01, 0.64), pain intensity (pooled effect size 0.03; 95% CI:-0.30, 0.36), and behavioral outcomes (pooled effect size 0.19; 95% CI: -0.08, 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: Behavioral treatment seems to be an effective treatment for patients with chronic low back pain,but it is still unknown what type of patients benefit most from what type of behavioral treatment.

Chronic Disease↗

PubMed2000

Behavioral treatment for chronic low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Back Review Group.

STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The treatment of chronic low back pain is not primarily focused on removing an underlying organic disease but at the reduction of disability through the modification of environmental contingencies and cognitive processes. Behavioral interventions are commonly used in the treatment of chronic (disabling) low back pain. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether behavioral therapy is more effective than reference treatments for chronic nonspecific low back pain and which type of behavioral treatment is most effective. METHODS: The authors searched the Medline and PsychLit databases and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to April 1999, and Embase up to September 1999. Also screened were references of identified randomized trials and relevant systematic reviews. Methodologic quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. The magnitude of effect was assessed by computing a pooled effect size for each domain (i.e., behavioral outcomes, overall improvement, back pain-specific and generic functional status, return to work, and pain intensity) using the random effects model. RESULTS: Only six (25%) studies were high quality. There is strong evidence (level 1) that behavioral treatment has a moderate positive effect on pain intensity (pooled effect size 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0. 25, 0.98), and small positive effects on generic functional status (pooled effect size 0.35; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.74) and behavioral outcomes (pooled effect size 0.40; 95% CI: 0.10, 0.70) of patients with chronic low back pain when compared with waiting-list controls or no treatment. There is moderate evidence (level 2) that a addition of behavioral component to a usual treatment program for chronic low backpain has no positive short-term effect on generic functional status (pooled effect size 0.31; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.64), pain intensity (pooled effect size 0.03; 95% CI: 0.30,0.36), and behavioral outcomes (pooled effect size 0.19; 95% CI: 0.08, 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: Behavioral treatment seems to be an effective treatment for patients with chronic low back pain,but it is still unknown what type of patients benefit most from what type of behavioral treatment.

Analgesics↗

PubMed2006

Short to midterm outcomes of fenestrated endovascular grafts in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review of the short to midterm outcomes of fenestrated endovascular grafts in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). METHODS: A search of PubMed and Medline databases for English-language literature was performed to find studies published between 1999 and 2006. Studies investigating the short to midterm results of fenestrated endovascular grafts for AAA were analyzed for clinical outcomes and postprocedural complications. RESULTS: Nineteen studies involving fenestrated endovascular grafting were retrieved, and 6 of them met criteria for inclusion in the analysis. The remaining studies were excluded because they dealt with technical or case reports or cumulative addition of previous cases. Pooled estimates (95% confidence interval) of postprocedural complications were 1.1% (0.4%-2.7%) for 30-day mortality; 8.3% (2.9%-13.6%) for late mortality; 97% (92%-100%) and 90% (85%-95%) for perfusion of fenestrated vessels at perioperative and late follow-up, respectively; 13.3% (4.1%-22.5%) for postprocedural renal dysfunction; and 11.2% (3.2%-22.5%) and 9.4% (2.6%-16.3%) for early and late endoleak, respectively. There was correlation between preoperative renal insufficiency and postprocedural renal dysfunction, although this was not a statistically significant difference (p=0.2). CONCLUSION: Our systematic review showed that fenestrated endovascular grafting provides an alternative technique to treat patients with complex aneurysm necks, achieving lower mortality than open repair under comparable conditions. Preoperative renal impairment is a strong indicator of postoperative renal dysfunction. Long-term stability and patency of the fenestrated vessels deserves to be validated.

Angioplasty, Balloon↗

PubMed2006

Identifying systematic reviews of the adverse effects of health care interventions.

BACKGROUND: In order to carry out a methodological research survey of systematic reviews of adverse effects we needed to retrieve a sample of systematic reviews in which the primary outcome is an adverse effect or effects. METHODS: We carried out searches of the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) for systematic reviews of adverse effects published between 1994 to 2005. The search strategies used a combination of text words in the title and abstract, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and subheadings/qualifiers. In addition, DARE records in progress were hand searched. No language restrictions were placed on any of the searches. The performance, in terms of sensitivity and precision, of the search strategies and their combinations were tested in DARE and CDSR. RESULTS: In total 3635 records were screened of which 257 met our inclusion criteria. The precision of the searches in CDSR was low (0% to 3%), and no one search strategy could retrieve all the relevant records in either DARE or CDSR. Hand searching the records from DARE and CDSR not retrieved by our searches indicated that we had missed relevant systematic reviews in both DARE and CDSR. The sensitivities of many of the search combinations were comparable to those found when searching for primary studies in which adverse effects are secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Searching major databases of systematic reviews, for systematic reviews of adverse effects, proved more difficult than anticipated due to a lack of standard terminology used by the authors, inadequate indexing and the variations in the search interfaces of the databases. At present hand searching all records in DARE and CDSR seems to be the only way to ensure retrieval of all systematic reviews of adverse effects in these databases.

Abstracting and Indexing↗

PubMedDate not supplied

[Systematic reviews and meta-analysis in laboratory medicine: principles and methods].

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can help health-care professionals to base their decisions on the highest levels of evidence, and are therefore the cornerstone in practicing evidence-based medicine. In the field of diagnosis in general, and in laboratory medicine in particular, systematic reviews are scarcer, and often of lower quality than in other areas of medicine. AIM: To summarize the principles and methods that can be advised to perform systematic reviews of good quality in laboratory medicine. METHODS: A narrative review of the literature and discussions with members of the Committee on Evidence-Based Laboratory Medicine of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, in particular during our last three meetings, enabled us to adapt to laboratory medicine the methods which are currently being advocated to perform systematic reviews of good quality in other medical areas. RESULTS: The process of systematic reviewing consists of six key steps: 1) preparation: formulation of question(s); 2) systematic search of the literature; 3) selection of primary studies; 4) critical appraisal of the quality of the selected literature; 5) extraction and synthesis of data; 6) interpretation. The main differences between systematic reviews of diagnostic interventions and those of therapeutic interventions bear on question formulation, the choice of study designs to be included or excluded, the assessment of study quality and the statistical methods used to combine their results. The quoted references will help interested readers to deepen by themselves the most technical or controversial points. CONCLUSION: In order to improve quality of care as well as the balance between benefits, harms and costs of practice, each recommendation in guidelines should be based on a systematic review. In addition, such reviews can help to better identify gaps in biomedical knowledge, and improve critical skills, education, and training of professionals. One can therefore reasonably expect that the current multiplication of systematic reviews in laboratory medicine will favor the diffusion of diagnostic technologies with the highest levels of proven efficacy and effectiveness, at the detriment of the others.

Biology↗

PubMed2003

The assessment of systematic reviews in dentistry.

The aim of this study was to assess the quality of systematic reviews of effectiveness of interventions in dentistry. The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched to identify systematic reviews examining the effectiveness of interventions for oral, dental and craniofacial disorders and diseases. Sixty-five reviews were identified and assessed independently by two reviewers. The area most frequently evaluated within the reviews was pain relief/prevention (20/65, 31%) followed by caries and oral medicine. The quality assessment of the identified systematic reviews highlighted key areas where improvements could be made. One major weakness of the reviews was that the search strategies employed were not always adequate. Only 12 reviews (19%) demonstrated an attempt to identify all relevant studies. Other areas of weakness include the screening and quality assessment of primary studies, the pooling of data and examination of heterogeneity, and the interpretation of findings. This investigation shows that the quality of systematic reviews in dentistry could be improved. If future clinical decisions are to be based upon systematic reviews, it is imperative that the reviews address clinically relevant, focused questions and follow a 'transparent', well-designed protocol.

Databases, Bibliographic↗

PubMed2003

Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews summarize all pertinent evidence on a defined health question. They help clinical scientists to direct their research and clinicians to keep updated. Our objective was to determine the extent to which systematic reviews are clustered in a large collection of clinical journals and whether review type (narrative or systematic) affects citation counts. METHODS: We used hand searches of 170 clinical journals in the fields of general internal medicine, primary medical care, nursing, and mental health to identify review articles (year 2000). We defined 'review' as any full text article that was bannered as a review, overview, or meta-analysis in the title or in a section heading, or that indicated in the text that the intention of the authors was to review or summarize the literature on a particular topic. We obtained citation counts for review articles in the five journals that published the most systematic reviews. RESULTS: 11% of the journals concentrated 80% of all systematic reviews. Impact factors were weakly correlated with the publication of systematic reviews (R2 = 0.075, P = 0.0035). There were more citations for systematic reviews (median 26.5, IQR 12 - 56.5) than for narrative reviews (8, 20, P <.0001 for the difference). Systematic reviews had twice as many citations as narrative reviews published in the same journal (95% confidence interval 1.5 - 2.7). CONCLUSIONS: A few clinical journals published most systematic reviews. Authors cited systematic reviews more often than narrative reviews, an indirect endorsement of the 'hierarchy of evidence'.

Bibliometrics↗

PubMed2005

The value and impact of information provided through library services for patient care: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: An updated systematic review was carried out of research studies looking at the value and impact of library services on health outcomes for patients and time saved by health professionals. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic search was undertaken of the published literature to September 2003 in ERIC, LISA, MEDLINE, PREMEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and Google. Some handsearching was carried out, reference lists were scanned and experts in the field were contacted. Twenty-eight research studies of professionally led libraries for health-care staff, including clinical librarian projects, met the inclusion criterion of at least one health or 'time saved' outcome. Papers were critically appraised using internationally accepted criteria. Data were extracted and results were summarised using a narrative format as the studies were heterogeneous and precluded a statistical analysis. RESULTS: There is evidence of impact from both traditional and clinical librarian services. The higher quality studies of traditional services measured impacts of 37-97% on general patient care, 10-31% on diagnosis, 20-51% on choice of tests, 27-45% on choice of therapy and 10-19% on reduced length of stay. Four studies of clinical librarian projects suggested that professionals saved time as a result of clinical librarian input, and two of these studies showed evidence of cost-effectiveness. However, the clinical librarian studies were generally smaller, with poorer quality standards. CONCLUSIONS: Research studies suggest that professionally led library services have an impact on health outcomes for patients and may lead to time savings for health-care professionals. The available studies vary greatly in quality but the better quality studies also suggest positive impacts. Good practice can be gathered from these studies to guide the development of a pragmatic survey for library services that includes the direct effects for patients among the outcome measures.

Biomedical Research↗

PubMed2003

Systematic reviews of the effectiveness of quality improvement strategies and programmes.

Systematic reviews provide the best evidence on the effectiveness of healthcare interventions including quality improvement strategies. The methods of systematic review of individual patient randomised trials of healthcare interventions are well developed. We discuss methodological and practice issues that need to be considered when undertaking systematic reviews of quality improvement strategies including developing a review protocol, identifying and screening evidence sources, quality assessment and data abstraction, analytical methods, reporting systematic reviews, and appraising systematic reviews. This paper builds on our experiences within the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) review group.

Canada↗

PubMed2005

Understanding systematic reviews and meta-analysis.

This review covers the basic principles of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The problems associated with traditional narrative reviews are discussed, as is the role of systematic reviews in limiting bias associated with the assembly, critical appraisal, and synthesis of studies addressing specific clinical questions. Important issues that need to be considered when appraising a systematic review or meta-analysis are outlined, and some of the terms used in the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses--such as odds ratio, relative risk, confidence interval, and the forest plot--are introduced.

Child↗

PubMed2002

[Tropisetron for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a quantitative systematic review].

OBJECTIVE: A quantitative systematic review of randomised controlled trials investigating the efficacy of tropisetron versus placebo to prevent postoperative nausea (PN) and vomiting (PV) as well as PN and/or PV (PONV). METHODS: The relevant results for the 24 h postoperative period were extracted from systematically searched studies (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane-Library, reference lists; last update December 2001). RESULTS: In 19 studies and 22 comparisons, 1,012 patients received a placebo and 1,267 patients tropisetron and the pooled analyses (2-5 mg iv) are presented. The relative risks (RR) for PN, PV and PONV with tropisetron prophylaxis were 0.72 (95%-CI: 0.62-0.83), 0.59 (95%-CI: 0.47-0.73) and 0.70 (95%-CI: 0.62-0.79), respectively. The RR for rescue treatment was 0.63 (95%-CI: 0.54-0.74). The RR in children for a variable dose of 0.1-0.2 mgxkg(-1) was 0.49 (95%-CI: 0.38-0.63), 0.49 (95%-CI: 0.38-0.63) and 0.32 (95%-CI: 0.15-0.70) for PV, PONV and rescue treatment, respectively. Restricting the analysis to a predefined control event rate of 40-80% revealed that about 6-7 patients need to be treated with tropisetron for PN to be prevented in 1 patient who would have had PN if all had received a placebo (NNT=6.7; 95%-CI: 4.8-11.1). The corresponding NNT for preventing PV and PONV was 5.0 (95%-CI: 3.6-8.3) and 4.6 (95%-CI: 3.6-6.3), respectively. CONCLUSION: Tropisetron significantly reduced the incidence of PONV. There is no clear evidence for a dose response between 2 and 5 mg iv. For children a dose of 0.1 mgxkg(-1) of body weight is effective. Sufficient data for the oral application of tropisetron are lacking.

Administration, Oral↗

PubMed2003

Radiofrequency denervation for neck and back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the cochrane collaboration back review group.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of radiofrequency denervation for the treatment of musculoskeletal pain disorders. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is a lack of effective treatment for chronic zygapophysial joint pain and discogenic pain. Radiofrequency denervation appears to be an emerging technology, with substantial variation in its use. METHODS: Original articles for this review were identified by electronically searching MEDLINE, PsycLIT, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to February 2002, hand-screening references, and consulting experts in the field. Two reviewers selected the randomized controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria, extracted the data, and assessed the main results and methodologic quality of the selected trials. Finally, qualitative analysis was conducted to evaluate the level of scientific evidence. RESULTS: Of seven relevant randomized controlled trials, six were considered to be high quality. The selected trials included 275 randomized patients, 141 of whom received active treatment. One study examined cervical zygapophysial joint pain; two, cervicobrachial pain; three, lumbar zygapophysial joint pain; and one, discogenic low back pain. The sample sizes were small, follow-up times short, and there were deficiencies noted in patient selection, outcome assessments, and statistical analyses. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence that radiofrequency denervation offers short-term relief for chronic neck pain of zygapophysial joint origin and for chronic cervicobrachial pain, and conflicting evidence for its effectiveness for lumbar zygapophysial joint pain. There is limited evidence suggesting that intradiscal radiofrequency may not be effective in relieving discogenic low back pain. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed, with larger patient samples and data on long-term effects, for which current evidence is inconclusive.

Back Pain↗

PubMed2004

The value of systematic reviews as research activities in medical education.

Medical residents and postdoctoral fellows are often required to conduct and publish original research as part of their medical education. However, their relative lack of experience, time, money, and sometimes supervision in conducting original research often results in research of modest quality on topics of limited importance. Such research may also consume scarce resources from the sponsoring institution. Manuscripts describing such research are often unremarkable, although most are submitted for publication, where editors and peer reviewers will spend time evaluating them. Systematic reviews of the literature, however, offer similar training in the scientific method, are relatively inexpensive to conduct, teach critical appraisal of the literature, give trainees a thorough command of the topic studied, and provide even new investigators the opportunity to make important contributions to the literature. Systematic reviews of the literature should thus be acceptable alternatives to original research assignments for most trainees in medical education programs. The author reviews the characteristics of systematic reviews, outlines the steps in conducting them, identifies the lessons learned from completing each step, and compares the advantages and disadvantages of systematic reviews with those of conducting original research.

Biomedical Research↗

PubMed1999

Diagnostic value of history and physical examination in patients suspected of sciatica due to disc herniation: a systematic review.

We conducted a systematic review of the literature from 1965-1994 to assess the value of history and physical examination in the diagnosis of sciatica due to disc herniation; we also included population characteristics and features of the study design affecting diagnostic value. Studies on the diagnostic value of history and physical examination in the diagnosis of sciatica due to disc herniation are subject to important biases, and information on numerous signs and symptoms is scarce or absent. Our search revealed 37 studies meeting the selection criteria; these were systematically and independently read by three readers to determine diagnostic test properties using a standard scoring list to determine the methodological quality of the diagnostic information. A meta-analysis was performed when study results allowed statistical pooling. Few studies investigated the value of the history. Pain distribution seemed to be the only useful history item. Of the physical examination signs the straight leg raising test was the only sign consistently reported to be sensitive for sciatica due to disc herniation. However, the sensitivity values varied greatly, the pooled sensitivity and specificity values being 0.85 and 0.52, respectively. The crossed straight leg raising test was the only sign shown to be specific; the pooled sensitivity and specificity values were 0.30 and 0.84, respectively. There was considerable disagreement on the specificity of the other neurological signs (paresis, sensory loss, reflex loss). Several types of bias and other methodological drawbacks were encountered in the studies limiting the validity of the study results. As a result of these drawbacks it is probable that test sensitivity was overestimated and test specificity underestimated.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗

PubMed2005

Remote interpretation in medical encounters: a systematic review.

We conducted a systematic review of remote interpretation. Any published or unpublished research article that had telephone or videoconferenced interpretation as an intervention was included in the review. Nine articles were identified: seven on telephone and two on videoconferenced interpretation. Only one study was a randomized controlled trial. Remote interpretation was associated with shorter intervals between consultations, but there were no consistent differences in relation to consultation length. Client and doctor satisfaction was as good with remote interpretation as with face-to-face interpretation, but interpreters preferred face-to-face interpretation. Although the costs associated with remote interpreting are higher, especially in the case of videoconferencing, these may be offset by efficiency gains. The review suggests that remote interpretation is an acceptable and accurate alternative to traditional methods, although the associated costs are higher.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗

PubMed2005

Nodding and napping in medical lectures: an instructive systematic review.

A comprehensive, international systematic review, spanning more than 100 years of data collection, suggests that soporific lectures at medical meetings are common, annoying and persistent. Low lights and boring material are prominent risk factors for nodding off during presentations. Extreme remedial measures are warranted.

Boredom↗

PubMed2004

A comparison of yield in a non-systematic and a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the results of a non-systematic (A) and a systematic review (B) of test performance in oral cancer and precancer screening in terms of literature coverage, and qualitative and quantitative information yield. METHOD: For A, two databases were searched using basic search terms. Review B followed published guidelines. Nine databases were searched using three complex facets. In both reviews, one reviewer made the initial selection of relevant studies and, in A, carried out full text screening. In B, two independent reviewers carried out full text screening and then conferred on a final list of studies for inclusion and meta-analysis. RESULTS: In search A, 60 papers, and in B, 481 papers, were retrieved. Thirty from A, and 47 from B were selected for full text screening. From A, six papers, and from B, eight papers (six selected by the first reviewer and eight by the second; kappa = 0.83), were designated for inclusion in meta-analysis. The six papers from A were common to all selections. Seven papers were finally included in B. Compared with the non-systematic review, meta-analysis in the systematic review reduced the 95% CI for sensitivity from 0.594, 0.912 (= 0.318) to 0.713, 0.919 (= 0.189) resulting from the inclusion of a larger number of verified cases. The 95% CI for specificity changed only from 0.941, 0.991 (= 0.050) to 0.930, 0.982 (= 0.052). DISCUSSION: Both reviews had the same exacting and specific inclusion criteria. The papers ultimately included in each were closely matched. Advantages of the systematic review were 1) it afforded a degree of confidence that the literature had been exhaustively and systematically searched, 2) the use of a formal data extraction process ensured that clinical heterogeneity among the studies and its consequences were thoroughly explored, 3) the increased number of verified cases included in the systematic review meta-analysis led to the pooled estimate for sensitivity having greater precision.

Confidence Intervals↗

PubMed2004

Comparison of recovery profile after ambulatory anesthesia with propofol, isoflurane, sevoflurane and desflurane: a systematic review.

UNLABELLED: In this systematic review we focused on postoperative recovery and complications using four different anesthetic techniques. The database MEDLINE was searched via PubMed (1966 to June 2002) using the search words "anesthesia" and with ambulatory surgical procedures limited to randomized controlled trials in adults (>19 yr), in the English language, and in humans. A second search strategy was used combining two of the words "propofol," "isoflurane," "sevoflurane," or "desflurane". Screening and data extraction produced 58 articles that were included in the final meta-analysis. No differences were found between propofol and isoflurane in early recovery. However, early recovery was faster with desflurane compared with propofol and isoflurane and with sevoflurane compared with isoflurane. A minor difference was found in home readiness between sevoflurane and isoflurane (5 min) but not among the other anesthetics. Nausea, vomiting, headache, and postdischarge nausea and vomiting incidence were in favor of propofol compared with isoflurane (P < 0.05). A larger number of patients in the inhaled anesthesia groups required antiemetics compared with the propofol group. We conclude that the differences in early recovery times among the different anesthetics were small and in favor of the inhaled anesthetics. The incidence of side effects, specifically postoperative nausea and vomiting, was less frequent with propofol. IMPLICATIONS: A systematic analysis of the literature comparing postoperative recovery after propofol, isoflurane, desflurane, and sevoflurane-based anesthesia in adults demonstrated that early recovery was faster in the desflurane and sevoflurane groups. The incidence of nausea and vomiting were less frequent with propofol.

Ambulatory Surgical Procedures↗