Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34819721›Full record

Trial reportDrug design, development and therapy2021

The Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam Tosilate versus Etomidate-Propofol in Elderly Outpatients Undergoing Colonoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized, Single-Blind, Non-Inferiority Trial.

Xianwen Liu, Baofeng Ding, Fu Shi, Yang Zhang, Lei Liu, Yongwei Sha, Tonghang Zhao

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialEquivalence Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Drug design, development and therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
21.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 109 citations in OpenAlex.

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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Xianwen LiuDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Liaocheng People's Hospital, Liaocheng, Shandong, People's Republic of China.
Baofeng DingDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Liaocheng Second People's Hospital, Liaocheng, Shandong, People's Republic of China.
Fu ShiDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Liaocheng People's Hospital, Liaocheng, Shandong, People's Republic of China.
Yang ZhangDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Liaocheng People's Hospital, Liaocheng, Shandong, People's Republic of China.
Lei LiuDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Liaocheng People's Hospital, Liaocheng, Shandong, People's Republic of China.
Yongwei ShaDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Guanxian Central Hospital, Liaocheng, Shandong, People's Republic of China.
Tonghang ZhaoDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Liaocheng People's Hospital, Liaocheng, Shandong, People's Republic of China.
Liaocheng People's Hospital · CNXian Yang Central Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe optimal sedation regime during endoscopy remains controversial, especially for elderly outpatients. In this study, we compared the efficacy and safety between remimazolam tosilate (RT) and etomidate-propofol (EP) in elderly outpatients undergoing colonoscopy.

methodsA total of 260 elderly outpatients undergoing sedative colonoscopy were randomized into two groups. Patients in the RT group received a 0.075-mg/kg maintenance dose of remimazolam following an initial dose of 0.15 mg/kg, whereas patients in the EP group (10 mL:20 mg etomidate plus 10 mL:100 mg propofol) received a 0.05-mL/kg maintenance dose following an initial dose of 0.1 mL/kg to maintain a Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score of ≤3 during the procedure. The primary endpoint was the success of the procedure. Secondary endpoints included time metrics, hemodynamics, consumption of fentanyl, etomidate, propofol, and remimazolam, intraoperative body movement, patient and endoscopist satisfaction scores, supplemental dose of sedative and fentanyl, and incidence and severity of adverse events.

resultsThe procedure success rate was 96.52% in the RT group and 100% in the EP group. The difference in procedure success rate between the RT and EP groups was -3.48% (95% confidence interval: -6.81%, -0.15%). Four patients in the RT group required rescue midazolam. Compared with patients in the RT group, the onset time of the EP group was significantly lower (

conclusionRT may have non-inferior efficacy and a higher safety profile than EP in elderly outpatients undergoing colonoscopy, which suggests that RT may be more suitable for elderly outpatients undergoing colonoscopy.

Indexed as

ColonoscopyAgedBenzodiazepinesDose-Response Relationship, DrugEtomidateFemaleHumansMaleMuscle, SkeletalOutpatientsPainPropofolProspective StudiesSingle-Blind MethodTremorBenzodiazepinesEtomidatePropofolremimazolamcolonoscopyelderly outpatientsetomidatepropofolremimazolam tosilate

Identifiers

PMID34819721
PMCPMC8606755
OpenAlexW3214476309

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.