Trial reportCurrent medicinal chemistry2026
Comparison of the Safety and Efficacy of Ciprofol
Trial report in Current medicinal chemistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCiprofol is a novel sedative-anesthetic that functions similarly to propofol. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ciprofol for the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia in patients undergoing thoracoscopic surgery.
methodsA total of 120 patients undergoing thoracoscopic surgery for pulmonary nodules under general anesthesia were randomly assigned to the ciprofol group or the propofol group. Patients in the ciprofol group received an initial dose of 0.4 mg.kg
resultsThe sedation success rate was 100% in both groups. In this study, statistical analyses revealed no significant differences in the time to eyelash reflex disappearance (p=0.599), induction success time (p=0.431), the moment when the BIS value first fell below 60 (p=0.538), the time to respiratory recovery (p=0.505), or the interval until full wakefulness (p=0.837). Notably, within the first 10 minutes following the initial administration of the study medication, the reduction in blood pressure was significantly more pronounced in the propofol group (p<0.05). Additionally, the mean BIS value was significantly higher in the propofol group (p<0.01). The required dosage of sedative medication was significantly lower in the ciprofol group (p<0.001). Compared to the propofol group, the ciprofol group exhibited a significant reduction in the incidence of adverse events during intubation (p=0.01), a marked decrease in injection pain (p=0.001), and a significant decrease in the incidence of intraoperative hypotension (p<0.05).
conclusionCiprofol exhibits comparable efficacy and safety profiles for both the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia in patients undergoing thoracoscopic surgery. Furthermore, it has been associated with a reduced dosage requirement, significantly lower mean BIS values, and a notable decrease in the incidence of injection pain and intraoperative hypotension.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40626536What 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.