Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38287259›Full record

SynthesisBMC anesthesiology2024

The safety of remimazolam versus propofol in gastroscopic sedation: a meta-analysis.

Xincan An, Tianqi Shen, Xingxing Yin, Jin Xu, Yongming Zhang, Tianlong Wang

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC anesthesiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  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

6 authors.

Xincan An *Department of Anesthesiology, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Tianqi Shen *Department of Anesthesiology, 984th Hospital of the People's Liberation Army, Beijing, China.
Xingxing YinDepartment of Anesthesiology, 984th Hospital of the People's Liberation Army, Beijing, China.
Jin XuDepartment of Education, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Yongming ZhangDepartment of Anesthesiology, 984th Hospital of the People's Liberation Army, Beijing, China.
Tianlong WangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. w_tl5595@hotmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis meta-analysis was designed to compare the safety and efficiency of remimazolam with those of propofol in patients undergoing gastroscope sedation.

methodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Ovid, Wanfang Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, SINOMED, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies that reported on remimazolam versus propofol for gastroscope sedation from establishment to February 25, 2023. The sedative efficiency and the incidence of adverse events were assessed as outcomes. Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Review Manager 5.4 and STATA 17 were used to perform all statistical analyses.

resultsA total of 26 randomized controlled trials involving 3,641 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The results showed that remimazolam had a significantly lower incidence of respiratory depression (risk ratio [RR] = 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28-0.57; p < 0.01, GRADE high), hypoxemia (RR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.23-0.49; p < 0.01, GRADE high), bradycardia (RR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.23-0.51; p < 0.01, GRADE high), dizziness (RR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.31-0.65; p < 0.01, GRADE high), injection site pain (RR = 0.06, 95% CI: 0.03-0.13; p < 0.01, GRADE high), nausea or vomiting (RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.62-1.00; p = 0.05, GRADE moderate), and hypotension (RR = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.26-0.48; p < 0.01, GRADE low).

conclusionsRemimazolam can be used safely in gastroscopic sedation and reduces the incidence of respiratory depression, hypoxemia, bradycardia, injection site pain, and dizziness compared with propofol, and doesn't increase the incidence of nausea and vomiting.

Indexed as

BenzodiazepinesPropofolRespiratory InsufficiencyBradycardiaDizzinessGastroscopesHumansHypoxiaNauseaPainRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicVomitingBenzodiazepinesPropofolremimazolamGastroscopic sedationMeta-analysisPropofolRemimazolam

Identifiers

PMID38287259
PMCPMC10823673

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.