Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39359483›Full record

Trial reportDrug design, development and therapy2024

Comparison of Remimazolam and Propofol in Recovery of Elderly Outpatients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Randomized, Non-Inferiority Trial.

Lin Lu, Bing Chen, Xueli Zhao, Jie Zhai, Pan Zhang, Zhen Hua

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative StudyEquivalence Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Drug design, development and therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Remimazolam in anesthesia and sedation: A narrative review.Journal of anesthesia and translational medicine · 2025
    Review
  15. Review
  16. 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.

Lin Lu *Department of Anesthesiology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Bing Chen *Department of Anesthesiology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0003-2303-1363
Xueli ZhaoDepartment of Anesthesiology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Jie ZhaiDepartment of Anesthesiology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Pan ZhangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Zhen HuaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, People's Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: We designed this trial to compare the recovery time of remimazolam and propofol in elderly patients undergoing painless gastrointestinal endoscopy. Patients and Methods: In this randomized, non-Inferiority trial, 360 patients aged 65 years or older, scheduled for elective outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopy, were randomly assigned to the remimazolam combined with fentanyl (RF) group or the propofol combined with fentanyl (PF) group. The primary outcome was the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay time, defined as the time from the end of the examination to scoring 9 points using the Modified Post-Anesthetic Discharge Scoring System (MPADSS) criteria. Secondary outcomes included sedation-related adverse events, recall, injection pain, as well as postoperative Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) scores and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) scores at 1 day, 1 week, and 1 month postoperatively. Results: A total of 351 patients completed the study, with 174 receiving remimazolam and 177 receiving propofol. The PACU stay time in RF group was non-inferior to that in PF group [14 (11, 18) vs 13 (10, 17), mean difference 1 (95% confidence interval 0, 2), Conclusion: This non-inferiority study revealed that in elderly outpatients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy, remimazolam achieved recovery times comparable to propofol, with fewer associated complications.

Indexed as

BenzodiazepinesEndoscopy, GastrointestinalOutpatientsPropofolAgedAged, 80 and overAnesthesia Recovery PeriodFemaleHumansHypnotics and SedativesMaleBenzodiazepinesHypnotics and SedativesPropofolremimazolamgastrointestinal endoscopyolder patientspostoperative recoveryremimazolam

Identifiers

PMID39359483
PMCPMC11446194

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.