ArticleBMJ open2023
Ciprofol versus propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for anesthesia in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscope: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT).BMC anesthesiology · 2025Pooled it
- Ciprofol Versus Propofol for Sedation in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in a Chinese Population.Drug design, development and therapy · 2025Pooled it
- The novel ciprofol versus propofol during gastroenteroscopy in Chinese patients: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of the Safety and Efficacy of CiprofolCurrent medicinal chemistry · 2026Trial
- Efficacy and safety of ciprofol for gastroscopy in patients with obesity: a randomised clinical controlled trial using different weight-based dosing scales.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Trial
- ED50 of ciprofol combined with sufentanil for fiberoptic bronchoscopy of different patient populations with pulmonary tuberculosis.BMC anesthesiology · 2024Trial
- Enhanced hemodynamic stability and patient satisfaction with ciprofol-remifentanil versus propofol-remifentanil for sedation in shorter-duration fiberoptic bronchoscopy: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- The Median Effective Dose of Ciprofol Combined with Sufentanil for Inhibiting Responses to Gastroscope Insertion in Obese Patients: A Prospective, Single-Center Study.Drug design, development and therapy · 2025Article
- Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for induction and maintenance of general anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2024Review
- Efficacy and safety of remimazolam besylate and ciprofol in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy in the elderly.Acta cirurgica brasileira · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPainless gastrointestinal endoscopy is being increasingly practised in the clinical field. The management and choice of sedation are important during the endoscopy procedure to reduce patient discomfort and facilitate high disease detection rates. Ciprofol is principally an agonist of the γ-aminobutyric acid type A receptor; it comprises the active ingredient HSK3486, which is similar to the currently used intravenous anaesthetic propofol in clinical practice. A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing ciprofol and propofol will be conducted to assess their efficacy and safety during endoscopy. Before starting the study, we describe the specific protocol of this systematic review. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol was prepared in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols 2015. The following databases will be searched: Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Literature Service System, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, China Science and Technology Journal Database and a clinical trial registry. The database search strategy will adopt a combination of subject words and free words. Randomised controlled trials related to ciprofol use for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy will also be included. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, two researchers will independently screen the articles and extracted data. Following the qualitative evaluation of each study, analysis will be conducted using Review Manager software. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis involves no individual patient data; thus, ethical approval is not required. This will be the first meta-analysis to assess the sedation efficacy of ciprofol and provide evidence to clinicians for decision-making. The results will be disseminated through conference presentations and publications in peer-review journals related to this field. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022370047.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.