Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40980419›Full record

Trial reportDrug design, development and therapy2025

Comparison of Ciprofol-Based and Propofol-Based Total Intravenous Anesthesia on Postoperative Recovery Quality in Patients Undergoing Hysteroscopic Surgery: A Randomized Non-Inferiority Trial.

Huan Yang, Yan Yang, Yihao Huang, Tao Liu, Yiheng Wang

Abstract readComparative StudyEquivalence TrialRandomized Controlled 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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Huan YangDepartment of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang, Hunan, 421001, People's Republic of China.
Yan YangDepartment of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang, Hunan, 421001, People's Republic of China.
Yihao HuangDepartment of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang, Hunan, 421001, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0009-0007-3653-5874
Tao LiuDepartment of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang, Hunan, 421001, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0009-0005-0897-9457
Yiheng WangDepartment of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang, Hunan, 421001, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0002-5185-3551

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The 2,6-disubstituted alkylphenol ciprofol is a novel propofol analog for induction and maintenance of anesthesia. We aimed to compare the effects of ciprofol-based and propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) on postoperative recovery quality following hysteroscopic surgery. Patients and Methods: In this randomized non-inferiority trial, women scheduled for hysteroscopic surgery at a tertiary hospital were randomly assigned to the ciprofol or propofol groups. The patients were administered intravenous injections of ciprofol (0.4 mg/kg) or propofol (2.0 mg/kg) for anesthesia induction before a maintenance infusion at initial rates of 0.8 or 5.0 mg/kg/h, respectively. The primary outcome was the Quality of Recovery-15 scale (QoR-15) score at 24 h post-surgery, and a non-inferiority margin of -8 was assumed. The secondary outcomes included hemodynamic changes, time to consciousness loss and recovery, incidences of injection pain, body movement, intraoperative respiratory adverse events, and postoperative adverse events. Results: The trial included 120 participants (60 per group). The total QoR-15 score 24 h after surgery in the ciprofol group was comparable to that in the propofol group (median [interquartile range]: 113.5 [111.0, 117.0] vs 112.5 [108.0, 117.0]; median difference [95% confidence interval]: -1.0 [-3.0, 2.0]). There were no significant differences in the five QoR-15 dimensions between the groups. The mean arterial pressure and heart rate during anesthesia induction and surgery were significantly higher in the ciprofol group than in the propofol group, whereas the incidence of injection pain was lower. In addition, there were no significant between-group differences in the time to loss of consciousness or awakening, incidences of intraoperative hypoxemia or laryngospasm, or incidences of postoperative nausea, vomiting, headache, dizziness, and drowsiness. Conclusion: Ciprofol is not inferior to propofol in terms of QoR score. Ciprofol administration is suitable for general anesthesia in female patients during hysteroscopic surgery.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, IntravenousAnesthetics, IntravenousHysteroscopyPropofolAdultAnesthesia Recovery PeriodCyclopropanesFemaleHumansMiddle Aged(2-(1R)-1-cyclopropyl)ethyl-6-isopropyl-phenolAnesthetics, IntravenousCyclopropanesPropofolciprofolhysteroscopic surgerypostoperative recovery qualitypropofol

Identifiers

PMID40980419
PMCPMC12449879

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.