Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39379828›Full record

SynthesisBMC anesthesiology2024

The efficacy of ciprofol versus propofol on anesthesia in patients undergoing endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Jikai Liu, Aonan Hong, Jinfang Zeng, Xiao Liang

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
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 15 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Comparison of Ciprofol-Nalbuphine and Propofol-Nalbuphine Sedation During Painless Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Ciprofol May Represent a Useful Sedative Option for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Observational
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.

Jikai Liu *Wuxi School of Medicine, Jiangnan University, Wuxi, China.
Aonan Hong *Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, China.
Jinfang ZengDepartment of Anesthesiology, Jiangnan University Medical Center (Wuxi No. 2 People's Hospital, Wuxi Clinical College of Nantong University), No.68, Zhongshan Road, Wuxi, 214002, China. crzjf@126.com.
Xiao LiangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Jiangnan University Medical Center (Wuxi No. 2 People's Hospital, Wuxi Clinical College of Nantong University), No.68, Zhongshan Road, Wuxi, 214002, China. liangxiao_doctor@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCiprofol is a new intravenous anesthetic with a similar chemical structure to propofol. We aimed to compare the incidence of adverse actions like injection pain and time indexes of ciprofol versus propofol on anesthesia in patients undergoing endoscopy. We also compared anesthetists' satisfaction during the procedure.

methodsTwo independent researchers (Liu and Zeng) searched the Cochrane Library, Embase databases, and PubMed for controlled clinical trials. This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed with the Review Manager, Stata and the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 tool to evaluate methodological quality. Relative risks with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for outcomes.

resultsTen trials, including 1545 patients, were examined in the current meta-analysis. During anesthesia in patients undergoing endoscopy, the incidence of injection pain was significantly reduced in the research group. Compared with propofol, the pooled risk difference (RD) with the use of ciprofol for injection pain for all the procedures was - 0.34 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.48 to 0.19), and RR for hypotension was 0.73(95% CI:0.58 to 0.92). GRADE showed this meta-analysis has moderate or low confidence. Trial sequential analysis for mortality indicated insufficient sample size for a definitive judgment for lower incidence of hypotension.

conclusionIn painless endoscopy, compared with propofol, ciprofol exhibited non-inferiority anesthesia/sedation in patients, and had a good safety profile with a lower incidence of pain on injection and may reduce the chance of hypotension. Trial sequential analysis suggested the need for more cases, and GRADE highlighted moderate certainty, emphasizing the necessity for further targeted RCTs. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42023433627.

Indexed as

Anesthetics, IntravenousEndoscopyPropofolRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicCyclopropanesHumansPain(2-(1R)-1-cyclopropyl)ethyl-6-isopropyl-phenolAnesthetics, IntravenousCyclopropanesPropofolCiprofol- endoscopy-propofol- meta-analysis-randomized controlled trials

Identifiers

PMID39379828
PMCPMC11460030

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.