SynthesisBMC anesthesiology2025
Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for anesthesia in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscope: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT).
Synthesis in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Incidence of Respiratory Depression Between Ciprofol versus Propofol for Procedural Sedation During First-Trimester Surgical Abortion: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Trial
- Sedation in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: From Drug-Centered Protocols to Personalized, Technology-Supported Pathways: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Precision Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Older Adults: Brain Vulnerability and Recovery.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Review
- The clinical observation of ciprofol versus propofol anesthesia in hysteroscopic electrosurgical resection of submucosal myomas.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCiprofol is considered an alternative to propofol and can be used to achieve anesthesia at a lower dose with a lower incidence of adverse events. The primary objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol used in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopes.
methodsThe databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were retrieved for randomized controlled trials of ciprofol and propofol used in gastrointestinal endoscopes from inception to May 10, 2024. All statistical analyses were conducted using Stata 14.0. Primary outcomes encompassed a successful rate of sedation and other safety outcomes, including injection pain, hypotension, bradycardia, overall respiratory disorders, and hypoxemia. Secondary outcomes concluded time to onset of successful induction, waking time, and discharge time.
resultsA total of 20 studies were included, involving 3779 patients. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the successful rate of anesthesia and waking time were not significantly different between ciprofol and propofol, while ciprofol was better than propofol in injection pain (RR: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.16, p < 0.001, I
conclusionBased on the results of pooled analysis, we conclude that ciprofol takes longer for cipofol to recover after surgery, it may greatly improve the pain problem and hemodynamic stability of intravenous propofol. Therefore, we believe that ciprofol can be used as an excellent substitute for propofol.
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.