Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37046269›Full record

SynthesisCritical care (London, England)2023

Propofol and survival: an updated meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Yuki Kotani, Alessandro Pruna, Stefano Turi, Giovanni Borghi, Todd C Lee, Alberto Zangrillo, Giovanni Landoni, Laura Pasin

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Critical care (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
28.3field-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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Review
  13. Light therapy in medicine: where do we stand?Annals of translational medicine · 2026
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Yuki Kotani *Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, San Raffaele Hospital, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina, 60-20132, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9532-2859
Alessandro Pruna *Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, San Raffaele Hospital, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina, 60-20132, Milan, Italy.
Stefano TuriDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, San Raffaele Hospital, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina, 60-20132, Milan, Italy.
Giovanni BorghiDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, San Raffaele Hospital, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina, 60-20132, Milan, Italy.
Todd C LeeDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Alberto ZangrilloDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, San Raffaele Hospital, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina, 60-20132, Milan, Italy.
Giovanni LandoniDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, San Raffaele Hospital, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina, 60-20132, Milan, Italy. landoni.giovanni@hsr.it.
Laura PasinAnesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, Padua University Hospital, Padua, Italy.
Vita-Salute San Raffaele University · ITMcGill University · CAUniversity of Padua · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPropofol is one of the most widely used hypnotic agents in the world. Nonetheless, propofol might have detrimental effects on clinically relevant outcomes, possibly due to inhibition of other interventions' organ protective properties. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate if propofol reduced survival compared to any other hypnotic agent in any clinical setting.

methodsWe searched eligible studies in PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials. The following inclusion criteria were used: random treatment allocation and comparison between propofol and any comparator in any clinical setting. The primary outcome was mortality at the longest follow-up available. We conducted a fixed-effects meta-analysis for the risk ratio (RR). Using this RR and 95% confidence interval, we estimated the probability of any harm (RR > 1) through Bayesian statistics. We registered this systematic review and meta-analysis in PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022323143).

resultsWe identified 252 randomized trials comprising 30,757 patients. Mortality was higher in the propofol group than in the comparator group (760/14,754 [5.2%] vs. 682/16,003 [4.3%]; RR = 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.20; p = 0.03; I

conclusionsPropofol may reduce survival in perioperative and critically ill patients. This needs careful assessment of the risk versus benefit of propofol compared to other agents while planning for large, pragmatic multicentric randomized controlled trials to provide a definitive answer.

Indexed as

PropofolAdultBayes TheoremHumansHypnotics and SedativesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicHypnotics and SedativesPropofolAnesthesiaHypnoticsMeta-analysisMortalityOrgan protectionPropofolSystematic reviewVolatile anesthetics

Identifiers

PMID37046269
PMCPMC10099692
OpenAlexW4365141246

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.