Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40912714›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Effects of etomidate versus propofol for total intravenous anaesthesia on postoperative quality of recovery in patients undergoing day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy: protocol for a multicentre, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

Shouqiang Zhu, Mimi Wu, Xiahao Ding, Wei Zhang, Tianjiao Xia, Jinhua Bo, Xiaoping Gu

Abstract readClinical Trial Protocol
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 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. Article
  3. Article
  4. PreoperativeFrontiers in bioinformatics · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
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

7 authors.

Shouqiang Zhu *Department of Anesthesiology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2021-5781
Mimi Wu *Department of Anesthesiology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, China.
Xiahao DingDepartment of Anesthesiology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, China.
Wei ZhangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, China.
Tianjiao XiaMedical School, Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China xiaopinggu@nju.edu.cn tjxia@nju.edu.cn bojinhua@njglyy.com.
Jinhua BoDepartment of Anesthesiology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, China xiaopinggu@nju.edu.cn tjxia@nju.edu.cn bojinhua@njglyy.com.
Xiaoping GuDepartment of Anesthesiology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, China xiaopinggu@nju.edu.cn tjxia@nju.edu.cn bojinhua@njglyy.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe choice of anaesthetic agents may influence specific aspects of postoperative recovery, such as haemodynamic stability, recovery times and the incidence of adverse events, in patients undergoing day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Propofol is widely used in total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) for its favourable recovery profile, while etomidate, valued for its haemodynamic stability, is less commonly used due to concerns about adrenal suppression. This study aims to compare etomidate-based and propofol-based TIVA on postoperative quality of recovery in patients undergoing day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy, hypothesising that etomidate is non-inferior to propofol. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial was conducted to compare the effects of etomidate vs propofol for TIVA on postoperative quality of recovery in patients undergoing day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A total of at least 336 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the etomidate or propofol group in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by site. The primary outcome was quality of recovery on postoperative day 1, quantified by the Quality of Recovery-15 questionnaire. Non-inferiority between the groups was determined using a margin of -6 points and a 95% CI. Secondary outcomes included perioperative haemodynamic stability, recovery times (eg, response to verbal commands, time to extubation and duration of postanaesthesia care unit stay), postoperative complications (eg, hypoxaemia, nausea/vomiting, delirium) and patient-reported outcomes such as pain, satisfaction and quality of sleep. Long-term outcomes included quality of life at 6 and 12 months, assessed using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Nanjing University Medical School, Drum Tower Hospital (No. 2024-371-04) and registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR2400087413.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, IntravenousAnesthesia Recovery PeriodAnesthetics, IntravenousCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicEtomidatePropofolAdultAmbulatory Surgical ProceduresDouble-Blind MethodEquivalence Trials as TopicFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMulticenter Studies as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnesthetics, IntravenousEtomidatePropofolAdult anaesthesiaHepatobiliary surgeryPropofol

Identifiers

PMID40912714
PMCPMC12414158

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.