Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40589444›Full record

SynthesisDrug design, development and therapy2025

Ciprofol Versus Propofol for Sedation in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in a Chinese Population.

Hongyu Yang, Ping Lai, Xiaoyu Qin, Yiyang Cui, Xiaojia Zhang, Haiqing Zhang, Yichen Ding, Ersheng Ye, Yaping Wu, Bingxu Ren

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Drug design, development and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

10 authors.

Hongyu Yang *Department of Anesthesiology, Nanchang People's Hospital, Nanchang, Jiangxi, People's Republic of China.
Ping Lai *Department of Anesthesiology, Nanchang People's Hospital, Nanchang, Jiangxi, People's Republic of China.
Xiaoyu Qin *Department of Anesthesiology, Shanghai East Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Yiyang CuiDepartment of Anesthesiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Xiaojia ZhangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Hebei General Hospital, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, People's Republic of China.
Haiqing ZhangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Shanghai East Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Yichen DingDepartment of Anesthesiology, Shanghai East Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Ersheng YeDepartment of Anesthesiology, Shanghai East Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Yaping WuCadre Ward (Geriatrics Department), The 81st Group Military Hospital of the Chinese People's Liberation Army, Zhangjiakou, Hebei, People's Republic of China.
Bingxu RenDepartment of Anesthesiology, Shanghai East Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Ciprofol (HSK3486) is a novel intravenous anesthetic structurally similar to propofol; however, its advantages over propofol remain unclear. This study aimed to compare the safety, efficacy, and satisfaction outcomes of ciprofol and propofol during gastrointestinal endoscopy. Patients and Methods: This systematic review incorporated all available comparative trials assessing ciprofol versus propofol for endoscopic sedation following a comprehensive search strategy across eight biomedical databases-Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library, along with major Chinese repositories (CNKI, Wanfang, CBM, and VIP)-through September 2023. Evidence synthesis was conducted per PRISMA guidelines, with methodological rigor enhanced through prospective trial registry screening and implementation of GRADE framework for evidence grading. Results: This systematic review included 45 randomized controlled trials involving 6884 patients who met predefined methodological and clinical eligibility thresholds. Very low to moderate certainty evidence showed that ciprofol induced sedation or anesthesia comparable to that of propofol (relative risk [RR]: 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.00 to 1.01), with both agents demonstrating similar procedural efficiency. Furthermore, ciprofol was associated with a reduced incidence of complications, including hypotension (RR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.70), bradycardia (RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.85), nausea and vomiting (RR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.84), hypoxia (RR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.48), respiratory depression (RR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.56), apnea (RR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.53), and injection pain (RR: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.17), while also enhancing patient and anesthesiologist satisfaction. Conclusion: Ciprofol-induced sedation or anesthesia was comparable to propofol, with both drugs demonstrating similar procedural efficiency. However, ciprofol was associated with lower risk of adverse reactions and higher satisfaction among patients and anesthesiologists. Ciprofol may represent a superior sedative option for gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Indexed as

Endoscopy, GastrointestinalHypnotics and SedativesPropofolChinaCyclopropanesEast Asian PeopleHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic(2-(1R)-1-cyclopropyl)ethyl-6-isopropyl-phenolCyclopropanesHypnotics and SedativesPropofolgastrointestinal endoscopysedationsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID40589444
PMCPMC12207532

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.