SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Potential of ciprofol as an alternative to propofol in elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and Safety of Ciprofol Versus Propofol for Anesthesia in Older Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Drugs & aging · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of anesthesia induction with ciprofol, propofol, and etomidate in elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a single center, prospective, double blind randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in aging · 2026Trial
- Effects of ciprofol versus propofol sedation on hypoxaemia and hypotension in elderly patients undergoing bidirectional endoscopy: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.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
Objective: Ciprofol is increasingly being used for sedation and induction of anesthesia in China. However, it remains unclear whether ciprofol is a more appropriate sedative than propofol in gastrointestinal endoscopy, especially in the elderly population. This study aimed to compare the safety of ciprofol with propofol in elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods: Eight common databases were used to search the relevant literature up to 1 January 2025. Included studies were screened according to established criteria, and their basic characteristics, outcome data, and risk of bias were recorded. Subsequently, Review Manager 5.3 software was used to perform meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) 0.9.5.10 Beta software was used to perform TSA. Results: Twelve randomized controlled trials and 1,653 participants were included in this study. Meta-analysis showed that compared to propofol, ciprofol reduced the incidence of hypotension (risk ratio [RR] 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48-0.71, Conclusion: These findings suggest that in elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy, ciprofol has fewer cardiovascular, respiratory, and neurological adverse events than propofol, highlighting the potential of ciprofol as an alternative to propofol. However, the optimal dose of ciprofol for gastrointestinal endoscopic sedation in the elderly remains to be explored. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42025643465, identifier CRD42025643465.
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.