Trial reportPloS one2025
Comparison of pre-treatment with different diluted sufentanil in reducing propofol injection pain in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A randomized controlled study.
Trial report in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to investigate the efficacy of pre-treatment with different concentrations of sufentanil in mitigating propofol injection-induced pain.
methodsThis study included 421 patients who were scheduled for gastrointestinal endoscopy between June 2023 and December 2024. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four groups with different concentrations sufentanil: 0 µg/mL group(0.9% normal saline), 0.5 µg/mL group, 1 µg/mL group and 5 µg/mL group.
resultsAmong the four groups, the rates of pain relief were 82 (77.4%), 93 (89.4%), 96 (89.7%), and 91 (87.5%), respectively. Compared to the 0 µg/mL group, the other groups demonstrated significantly reduced pain following propofol injection (p < 0.05). The recovery times were 14.59 ± 3.92 min, 15.13 ± 3.20 min, 14.27 ± 3.06 min, and 15.57 ± 3.24 min, respectively. Notably, the 1 µg/mL group did not exhibit a prolonged recovery time compared to the 0 µg/mL group. The total propofol consumption was recorded as 218.5 ± 36.8 mg, 196.7 ± 31.0 mg, 183.8 ± 25.0 mg, and 189.6 ± 31.4 mg, respectively, with the 1 µg/mL group showing the lowest total propofol consumption among the groups. The incidences of adverse events (AEs) were 61.3%, 70.2%, 58.9%, and 76.9%, respectively. In comparison to the 1 µg/mL group, the 5 µg/mL group exhibited a higher incidence of AEs. Furthermore, multivariate analysis indicated that a 5 µg/mL dilution of sufentanil increases the risk of AEs (p < 0.05).
conclusionsThe 1 µg/mL group demonstrated greater safety and efficacy when combined with propofol.
trial registrationThe study has been registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR). Link of the registry: http://www.chictr.org.cn. Date of registration: 2023/06/12. Trial registration number: ChiCTR2300072402.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.