Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40859971›Full record

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.

Shuwen Zhang, Guimin Dong, Xinyuan Shi, Hongyi Xiao, Peihe Nie, Fanceng Ji

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled TrialEquivalence Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. 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

6 authors.

Shuwen ZhangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Weifang People's Hospital, Weifang, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0009-0005-7934-5486
Guimin DongDepartment of Anesthesiology, Weifang People's Hospital, Weifang, People's Republic of China.
Xinyuan ShiSchool of Anaesthesiology, Shandong Second Medical University, Weifang, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0009-0006-8542-5682
Hongyi XiaoDepartment of Anesthesiology, Weifang People's Hospital, Weifang, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0002-3534-8731
Peihe Nie *Department of Anesthesiology, Weifang People's Hospital, Weifang, People's Republic of China.
Fanceng Ji *Department of Anesthesiology, Weifang People's Hospital, Weifang, People's Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Ambulatory Surgical ProceduresAnesthesia, GeneralAnesthetics, IntravenousGynecologic Surgical ProceduresPropofolAdultCyclopropanesDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMiddle AgedProspective Studies(2-(1R)-1-cyclopropyl)ethyl-6-isopropyl-phenolAnesthetics, IntravenousCyclopropanesPropofolciprofolday surgerygeneral anaesthesiapropofol

Identifiers

PMID40859971
PMCPMC12374712

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.