Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39624780›Full record

ArticleBiomedical reports2025

Efficacy and safety of remimazolam vs. propofol for general anesthesia with tracheal intubation: Systematic review and meta‑analysis.

Hong Luo, Zuolei Tang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomedical reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. 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

2 authors.

Hong LuoDepartment of Anesthesiology, 363 Hospital, Wuhou, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, P.R. China.
Zuolei TangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Tianfu New District People's Hospital, Shuangliu, Chengdu, Sichuan 610200, P.R. China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Remimazolam is an ultra-short-acting intravenous benzodiazepine derivative approved for sedation during gastroscopy and colonoscopy. The present study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of remimazolam and propofol for general anesthesia with tracheal intubation by meta-analysis. A comprehensive search was conducted in databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science, to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The search period was from the inception of these databases until February 2024. All eligible randomized controlled trials that report at least one outcome of interest were subjected to quality assessment and data extraction by two researchers independently using Review Manager 5.4 software. Data analysis was conducted using R software. A total of 14 RCTs with 1,275 patients were included for meta-analysis. Compared with propofol, remimazolam significantly reduced incidence of hypotension [odds ratio (OR)=0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI; 0.23, 0.43), P<0.0001], bradycardia [OR=0.06, 95% CI (0.00, 1.20), P=0.06] and injection pain [OR=0.02, 95% CI (0.01, 0.08), P<0.0001] with shorter time to recovery of consciousness (ROC) [mean difference (MD)=5.47 min, 95% CI (-10.70, -0.24 min), P=0.04] but longer time to loss of consciousness [MD=37.01 sec, 95% CI (24.42, 49.60 sec), P<0.0001]. Remimazolam was a safer and more effective alternative to propofol for general anesthesia with tracheal intubation and demonstrated a lower risk of adverse events with shorter time to ROC.

Indexed as

general anesthesiameta-analysispropofolremimazolamtracheal intubation

Identifiers

PMID39624780
PMCPMC11609608

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.