Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32913533›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2020

The efficacy and safety of remimazolam tosylate versus propofol in patients undergoing colonoscopy: a multicentered, randomized, positive-controlled, phase III clinical trial.

Shaohui Chen, Jin Wang, Xiaohan Xu, Yuguang Huang, Shanfu Xue, Anshi Wu, Xiaoju Jin, Qiang Wang, Jianrui Lyu, Sheng Wang and 13 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of translational research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 122 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
122citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

122 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. RemimazolamPeerJ · 2023
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

62 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors.

Shaohui ChenDepartment of Anesthesiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College Beijing 100730, China.
Jin WangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College Beijing 100730, China.
Xiaohan XuDepartment of Anesthesiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College Beijing 100730, China.
Yuguang HuangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College Beijing 100730, China.
Shanfu XueDepartment of Anesthesiology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University Beijing 100050, China.
Anshi WuDepartment of Anesthesiology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University Beijing 100020, China.
Xiaoju JinDepartment of Anesthesiology, Yijishan Hospital of Wannan Medical College Wuhu 241001, Anhui, China.
Qiang WangDepartment of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University Xi'an 710061, Shanxi, China.
Jianrui LyuDepartment of Anesthesiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University Xi'an 710004, Shanxi, China.
Sheng WangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital Guangzhou 510080, Guangdong, China.
Yujuan LiDepartment of Anesthesiology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University Guangzhou 510120, Guangdong, China.
Yonghao YuDepartment of Anesthesiology, General Hospital of Tianjin Medical University Tianjin 300052, China.
Dengbin AiDepartment of Anesthesiology, Qingdao Municipal Hospital Qingdao 266011, Shandong, China.
Ailin LuoDepartment of Anesthesiology, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Sciences Technology Wuhan 430030, Hubei, China.
Su MinDepartment of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University Chongqing 400042, China.
Lin LiDepartment of Anesthesiology, General Hospital of Shenyang Military Region, PLA Shenyang 110000, Liaoning, China.
Xiaohua ZouDepartment of Anesthesiology, The Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou Medical University Guiyang 550000, Guizhou, China.
Jin LiuDepartment of Anesthesiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University Chengdu 610041, Sichuan, China.
Peilin LvDepartment of Anesthesiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University Chengdu 610041, Sichuan, China.
Xiaoqin ChaiDepartment of Anesthesiology, Anhui Provincial Hospital Hefei 230001, Anhui, China.
Xude SunDepartment of Anesthesiology, Tangdu Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University Xi'an 710038, Shanxi, China.
Zhibin ZhaoDepartment of Anesthesiology, The First People's Hospital of Lianyungang Lianyungang 222061, Jiangsu, China.
Jiaqiang ZhangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Henan Provincial People's Hospital Zhengzhou 450003, Henan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam tosylate versus propofol in patients undergoing colonoscopy. In this multicentered, blinded, randomized, active-controlled, non-inferior phase III trial, 384 eligible patients who were about to undergo colonoscopy were randomized as a ratio of 1:1 into remimazolam and propofol group. Procedure success was assessed and defined as the completion of colonoscopy without administration of rescue sedative agent or more than 5 top-ups of trial drug in any 15 minute-period after initial administration of trial drug. Sedation quality was evaluated by Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score. Treatment-emergent adverse events were recorded. Procedure success rate was 96.91% (188/194) in remimazolam group and 100% (190/190) in propofol group, and the difference in rate was -3.09% with 95% confidence interval (CI) of -5.53%~-0.66%. Since the lower limit of 95% CI was greater than the non-inferiority margin of -8.00%, the efficacy of remimazolam tosylate was non-inferior to propofol. Besides, induction time of sedation was increased (

Indexed as

colonoscopyefficacypropofolRemimazolam tosylatetreatment-emergent adverse events

Identifiers

PMID32913533
PMCPMC7476156

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.