Trial reportDrug design, development and therapy2025
Comparison of Ciprofol Versus Propofol for the General Anaesthesia During Gynecological Day Surgery: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind, Non-Inferiority Trial.
Trial report 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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimal dose of ciprofol combined with remifentanil for laryngeal mask placement without muscle relaxant: a biased-coin up-and-down sequential allocation trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Trial
- Dexamethasone Alone versus Combined with Droperidol for Preventing Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Gynecological Day Surgery Under Ciprofol-Alfentanil Anesthesia: A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Trial.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Trial
- Effects of Ciprofol Combined with Varying Doses of Alfentanil on Anesthetic Efficacy and Safety in Pediatric Bronchoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Trial
- Efficacy and safety of ciprofol for general anesthesia in pediatric strabismus correction surgery: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Trial
- Median effective dose (ED50) of ciprofol combined with alfentanil for suppressing cervical dilation responses during hysteroscopy: a prospective Dixon up-and-down study.BMC anesthesiology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the safety and efficacy of ciprofol and propofol in general anesthesia for gynecological day surgery. Patients and Methods: A total of 196 patients undergoing gynecological day surgery under general anesthesia were randomly divided into ciprofol and propofol group. All patients received total intravenous anesthesia. Anesthesia induction in the ciprofol group: ciprofol 0.5 mg/kg was given intravenously within 1 minute, alfentanil 20 μg/kg was given intravenously within 30 seconds, mivacurium 0.2 mg/kg was given intravenously within 30 seconds, and anesthesia maintenance: ciprofol 1.25 mg/kg/h combined with alfentanil 40 μg/kg/h was given intravenously. Anesthesia induction in the propofol group, propofol 2 mg/kg was administered intravenously within 1 min, alfentanil 20μg/kg was given intravenously within 30s, mivacurium 0.2 mg/kg was administered intravenously within 30s, and anesthesia maintenance: propofol 5 mg/kg/h combined with alfentanil 40 μg/kg/h was administered intravenously. The primary outcome was the success rate of anesthesia (defined as the number of additional study drugs administered ≤ 2 times during anesthesia induction and ≤ 2 times within 10 min during anesthesia maintenance). The secondary outcomes included time to loss of consciousness, hemodynamic changes, depth of anesthesia at different time points, additional narcotic drugs during anesthesia, use of vasoactive agents, awakening time, and incidence of adverse reactions. Results: The success rate of anesthesia in both groups was 100%. There was no difference in the time of consciousness disappearance between the two groups during induction (81.95 vs 79.54s). Compared with the propofol group, the hemodynamics in the ciprofol group were more stable, the depth of anesthesia was better, the number of additional medications was significantly reduced, and the incidence of postoperative adverse reactions was significantly reduced. However, the awakening time of the ciprofol group was significantly longer than that of the propofol group (7.57 vs 5.52 min). Conclusion: Ciprofol demonstrated non-inferior efficacy to propofol for gynecological day surgery anesthesia, while offering superior hemodynamic stability and reduced adverse effects.
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.