Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38068368›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023

Comparison of Remimazolam-Flumazenil versus Propofol for Recovery from General Anesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Quantong Wu, Fuchao Xu, Jie Wang, Ming Jiang

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
15.5field-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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Hemodynamic safety of remimazolamWorld journal of gastrointestinal pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Quantong WuNanjing Drum Tower Hospital Clinical College of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 211166, China.ORCID 0009-0004-6914-2311
Fuchao XuNanjing Drum Tower Hospital Clinical College of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 211166, China.
Jie WangNanjing Drum Tower Hospital Clinical College of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 211166, China.
Ming JiangNanjing Drum Tower Hospital Clinical College of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 211166, China.
Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Purpose: to systematically evaluate the recovery following sedation and anesthesia with remimazolam combined with flumazenil in comparison to propofol. (2) Methods: Electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, were systematically searched from their inception up to 22 October 2023. Included in this analysis were randomized controlled trials (RCT) that compared remimazolam-flumazenil with propofol for the recovery from sedation and anesthesia in adults. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Pooled risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using either fixed-effects or random-effects models, and the results were visualized in forest plots. (3) Results: Nine RCTs involving 745 patients who underwent general anesthesia in three different countries were included. Compared to propofol, the remimazolam-flumazenil combination shortened the emergence time (MD = -4.34 min, 95% CI = [-6.88, -1.81],

Indexed as

anesthesiaERASflumazenilmeta-analysispropofolrecoveryremimazolamsedationsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38068368
PMCPMC10707179
OpenAlexW4389050078

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.