Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39659951›Full record

Trial reportDrug design, development and therapy2024

Comparison of the Effects of Ciprofol and Propofol on Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Undergoing Outpatient Hysteroscopy.

Huaming Zhang, Min Zhang, Lina Hao, Qianqian Li, Qijian Li, Jia Yang, Yanhu Xie

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Ciprofol-Esketamine Versus Ciprofol-Remifentanil in Hysteroscopic Endometrial Polypectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

7 authors.

Huaming Zhang *Department of Anaesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, Division of Life Sciences and Medicine, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, 230001, People's Republic of China.
Min Zhang *Department of Anaesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, Division of Life Sciences and Medicine, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, 230001, People's Republic of China.
Lina HaoDepartment of Anaesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, Division of Life Sciences and Medicine, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, 230001, People's Republic of China.
Qianqian LiDepartment of Anaesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, Division of Life Sciences and Medicine, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, 230001, People's Republic of China.
Qijian LiDepartment of Anaesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, Division of Life Sciences and Medicine, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, 230001, People's Republic of China.
Jia YangDepartment of Anaesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, Division of Life Sciences and Medicine, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, 230001, People's Republic of China.
Yanhu XieDepartment of Anaesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, Division of Life Sciences and Medicine, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, 230001, People's Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate and compare the effects of ciprofol and propofol on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing outpatient hysteroscopy. Design: Double-blind randomized controlled trial. Methods: This study included 1104 patients scheduled for elective outpatient hysteroscopy. Patients were randomly grouped to ciprofol Group (Group C, n = 539) and propofol Group (Group P, n = 547). Anesthesia was induced by sufentanil 0.1 ug/kg combined with ciprofol 0.3mg/kg or propofol 2.5mg/kg. Anesthesia was maintained by ciprofol 1 to 1.5mg/kg/h or propofol 3 to 5mg/kg/h. The primary outcome of the study was PONV after surgery 1h and 24h. Secondary outcomes included heart rate (HR), mean arterial blood pressure (MAP), SpO Results: Compared with group P, MAP and SpO2 at T2 were significantly increased in group C ( Conclusion: Compared with propofol, ciprofol has a similar incidence of PONV and lower adverse effects such as hypotension, injection pain and respiratory depression in outpatient hysteroscopy.

Indexed as

HysteroscopyPostoperative Nausea and VomitingPropofolAdultCyclopropanesDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMiddle AgedOutpatients(2-(1R)-1-cyclopropyl)ethyl-6-isopropyl-phenolCyclopropanesPropofolciprofolhysteroscopypostoperative nausea and vomitingpropofol

Identifiers

PMID39659951
PMCPMC11628403

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.