Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36407397›Full record

SynthesisAfrican health sciences2022

The comparison of remimazolam and midazolam for the sedation of gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.

Lin Zhang, Chun Li, Chuncheng Zhao, Yulai You, Jian Xu

Open access · diamondAbstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in African health sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Efficacy and Recovery of Remimazolam Versus Midazolam in Sedated Colonoscopy: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial in Japan.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Ciprofol May Represent a Useful Sedative Option for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Sedation in endoscopy: Current practices and future innovations.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Remimazolam: Promising sedative for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lin ZhangDepartment of geriatrics, Jiangjin District Central Hospital, Chongqing.
Chun LiDepartment of Neurology, Jiangjin District Central Hospital, Chongqing.
Chuncheng ZhaoDepartment of geriatrics, Jiangjin District Central Hospital, Chongqing.
Yulai YouDepartment of geriatrics, Jiangjin District Central Hospital, Chongqing.
Jian XuDepartment of geriatrics, Jiangjin District Central Hospital, Chongqing.
Jiangjin Central Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Remimazolam and midazolam are used for the sedation of gastrointestinal endoscopy, but their efficacy remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the sedation of remimazolam with midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the influence of remimazolam versus midazolam on gastrointestinal endoscopy were included. Two investigators independently have searched articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. This meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model. Results: Three RCTs involving 528 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy, remimazolam was associated with higher procedure success (OR=9.78; 95% CI=1.48 to 64.71; P=0.02), lower need for rescue medication (OR=0.09; 95% CI=0.01 to 0.80; P=0.03), shorter total recall (Std. MD=0.93; 95% CI=0.15 to 1.72; P=0.02) and delayed recall (Std. MD=0.44; 95% CI=0.05 to 0.83; P=0.03), reduced incidence of hypotenson (OR=0.39; 95% CI=0.25 to 0.62; P<0.0001) and adverse events (OR=0.36; 95% CI=0.17 to 0.79; P=0.01), but had no obvious influence on fully alert (Std. MD=-0.75; 95% CI=-1.58 to 0.08; P=0.08). Conclusions: Remimazolam demonstrated better efficacy and safety for the sedation of gastrointestinal endoscopy compared to midazolam.

Indexed as

BenzodiazepinesEndoscopy, GastrointestinalMidazolamHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicBenzodiazepinesMidazolamremimazolamgastrointestinal endoscopymeta-analysismidazolamRemimazolam

Identifiers

PMID36407397
PMCPMC9652671
OpenAlexW4291145326

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.