Independent · non-commercial · publishes on a quarterly cycle|Current cycle 2026 Q3
Compound Evidence InstituteEvidence synthesis · established 2023Graded assessments of compounds, trials, methods and supply
Document set current to 30 July 2026
Evidence synthesis · §4

Delayed gastric emptying, residual gastric content and procedural sedation — summary of findings

Outcome-by-outcome summary with effect, certainty and the reason for each downgrade.

Document identifier
CEI-ES-026/4
Series
Evidence synthesis
Version
2.2
Published
13 Sep 2024
Last reviewed
13 Feb 2025
Next review
13 Aug 2026
Identifier
10.71829/cei.syn.26
Certainty
Low
Cycle
2024 Q3
Review type
Safety review
Search executed
18 Jul 2024

§4Summary of findings

§4.1Summary of findings

Table 7. Summary of findings for Delayed gastric emptying, residual gastric content and procedural sedation.

OutcomeParticipants (studies)Effect as reportedCertaintyReason for downgrade
Gastric emptying half-time by scintigraphy or breath testThe outcome the Institute designates as anchor for this indication.— (0)Low certainty evidence, almost entirely observational, indicates that residual gastric content is found more often in treated patients after a…Lowpublication bias
Discontinuation for adverse eventsReported as a summary-of-findings row rather than in a tolerability annex, following a public submission.— (1)No contributing studyVery lowindirectness
Serious adverse eventsEvent counts are low; the estimate is imprecise by construction.— (1)No contributing studyVery lowinconsistency, indirectness
Any adverse eventAscertained by spontaneous report in the contributing trials.— (1)No contributing studyVery lowrisk of bias, imprecision
Residual gastric content at endoscopy or anaesthesiaA secondary outcome for this indication. Its hierarchical position within each contributing trial is recorded on that trial's abstract where the Institute holds it.— (1)Reported as a secondary outcome in a subset of contributing trialsVery lowrisk of bias, publication bias
Gastrointestinal adverse-event incidenceA secondary outcome for this indication. Its hierarchical position within each contributing trial is recorded on that trial's abstract where the Institute holds it.— (1)Reported as a secondary outcome in a subset of contributing trialsVery lowrisk of bias, imprecision, publication bias
Certainty ratings describe confidence in the effect estimate for the stated outcome. They are not recommendations and do not transfer between outcomes.

§4.2Certainty assessment for the anchor outcome

Certainty assessment by domainDowngrading decision recorded for each certainty domain.Certainty domainNo concernSeriousVery seriousEffect on ratingRisk of biasno downgradeInconsistencyno downgradeIndirectnessno downgradeImprecisionno downgradePublication biasdowngrade two levelsTotal downgrading: 2 levelsLow certainty
Figure 1. Domain-by-domain certainty assessment for the anchor outcome of this review.

Table 8. Reasoning recorded against each certainty domain for the anchor outcome.

DomainRatingReasoning
Risk of biasNo concernNo serious concern identified in this domain.
InconsistencyNo concernNo serious concern identified in this domain.
IndirectnessNo concernNo serious concern identified in this domain.
ImprecisionNo concernNo serious concern identified in this domain.
Publication biasVery seriousThe evidence base is small, recent and wholly sponsor-generated.
Overall: Low certainty. Confidence in the effect estimate is limited. The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate.
Nothing published by the Institute is medical advice, a diagnosis, a prescription, a treatment recommendation or a purchasing recommendation. Compounds supplied for research use are not approved for human or veterinary use in any jurisdiction, and a favourable analytical assessment of a supplier is not a statement that any product is safe or effective. The Institute publishes certainty ratings and never recommendations. No telephone number, messaging handle or ordering channel appears anywhere on this site.