Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39440139›Full record

Trial reportDrug design, development and therapy2024

Comparing Remimazolam and Propofol for Postoperative Anesthesia Satisfaction in Outpatient Gynecological Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Xu-Lin Wang, Ling-Ling Dai, Yan-Na Li, Jian-Wen Zhang, Ming-Cui Qu, Yao-Yao Zhou, Na Xing

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 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Observational
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

7 authors.

Xu-Lin Wang *Department of Anesthesiology, Pain and Perioperative Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, People's Republic of China.
Ling-Ling Dai *Department of Respiration, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, People's Republic of China.
Yan-Na LiDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain and Perioperative Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, People's Republic of China.
Jian-Wen ZhangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain and Perioperative Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, People's Republic of China.
Ming-Cui QuDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain and Perioperative Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, People's Republic of China.
Yao-Yao ZhouDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain and Perioperative Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, People's Republic of China.
Na XingDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain and Perioperative Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, People's Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of remimazolam and propofol regarding postoperative anesthesia satisfaction in patients undergoing outpatient gynecological surgery. Patients and Methods: This was a single-center, open-label, non-inferiority, randomized clinical trial. Patients aged ≥ 18 years who underwent outpatient gynecological surgery with sedation were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned to be sedated with remimazolam or propofol. The primary endpoint was the immediate postoperative anesthesia satisfaction score, evaluated through the Iowa Satisfaction with Anesthesia Scale (ISAS). Results: 168 patients were randomly allocated to either the remimazolam group (n = 84) or the propofol group (n = 84). The mean (standard deviation) ISAS scores immediately after surgery were 1.7 (0.6) for the remimazolam group and 2.0 (0.7) for the propofol group (difference, -0.2; 97.5% confidence interval [CI]: -0.5 to -0.0; Conclusion: Remimazolam was non-inferior to propofol regarding postoperative anesthesia satisfaction in patients undergoing outpatient gynecological surgery. Therefore, it should be considered as a new sedation alternative in such procedures.

Indexed as

Gynecologic Surgical ProceduresPatient SatisfactionPropofolAdultAmbulatory Surgical ProceduresAnesthesiaBenzodiazepinesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedBenzodiazepinesPropofolremimazolamoutpatient gynecological surgerypatient satisfactionpropofolremimazolamsedation

Identifiers

PMID39440139
PMCPMC11495188

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.