METHOD: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1996 to Feb 2019) and MEDLINE (1966 to Feb 2019) were searched, including the related randomised control trials and reviewed articles to find unpublished trials or trials not obtained via electronic searches. Inclusion criteria for the studies included comparing recovery time, recording clinician satisfaction, and assessing the adverse effects of ketofol.

RESULTS: Eleven trials consisting of a total of 1274 patients met our criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. Five trials compared ketofol with a single agent, while six trials compared ketofol with combined agents. While comparing between ketofol and a single agent (either ketamine or propofol), ketofol showed significant effect on recovery time (MD: -9.88, 95% CI: - 14.30 to - 5.46; P = 0.0003; I2 = 92%). However, no significant difference was observed while comparing ketofol with combined agents (RR: 0.75, 95% CI: - 6.24 to 7.74; P < 0.001; I2 = 98%). During single-agent comparison, ketofol showed no significant differences in terms of clinician satisfaction (RR: 2.86, 95% CI: 0.64 to 12.69; P = 0.001; I2 = 90%), airway obstruction (RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.35 to 11.48; P = 0.81; I2 = 0%), apnoea (RR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.33 to 2.44; P = 0.88; I2 = 0%), desaturation (RR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.94; P = 0.28; I2 = 21%), nausea (RR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.41; P = 0.2; I2 = 38%), and vomiting (RR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.61; P = 0.18; I2 = 42%). During comparison with combined agents, ketofol was more effective in reducing hypotension (RR: 4.2, 95% CI: 0.2 to 0.85; P = 0.76; I2 = 0%), but no differences were observed in terms of bradycardia (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.14 to 03.63; P = 0.09; I2 = 53%), desaturation (RR: 1.9, 95% CI: 0.15 to 23.6; P = 0.11; I2 = 61%), and respiratory depression (RR: 1.98, 95% CI: 0.18 to 21.94; P = 0.12; I2 = 59%).

CONCLUSION: There is low certainty of evidence that ketofol improves recovery time and moderate certainty of evidence that it reduces the frequency of hypotension. There was no significant difference in terms of other adverse effects when compared to other either single or combined agents.

METHOD: This pilot study screened 60 patients who underwent ultrasound-guided supradiaphragmatic central venous catheter insertion. We compared the investigators' guidewire's J-tip detection, D50% rapid atrial swirl sign (RASS) findings on the RVI-PLAX view and the central venous catheter tip on chest radiograph. We also compared the mean capillary blood sugar level before and after the 5 ml D50% flush.

METHODS: The study was conducted among COVID-19 subjects at an out-of-hospital setting whereby lung ultrasound was done and subsequently chest x-rays were taken after being admitted to the health care facilities. Lung ultrasound findings were reviewed by emergency physicians, while the chest x-rays were reviewed by radiologists. Radiologists were blinded by the patients' lung ultrasound findings and clinical conditions. The analysis of the agreement between the lung ultrasound findings and chest x-rays was conducted.

RESULTS: A total of 261 subjects were recruited. LUS detected pulmonary infiltrative changes in more stage 3 COVID-19 subjects in comparison to chest x-rays. Multiple B-lines were the predominant findings at the right lower anterior, posterior and lateral zones. Interstitial consolidations and ground glass opacities were the predominant descriptive findings in chest x-rays. However, there was no agreement between lung ultrasound and chest x-ray findings in detecting COVID-19 pneumonia as the Cohen's Kappa coefficient was 0.08 (95% CI 0.06-0.22, p = 0.16).