Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2025
Comparison of the potency-ratio of ciprofol and propofol on sedative effects in painless hysteroscopy: a randomized double-blind dose-response study.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCiprofol has been investigated as a potential alternative to propofol for anesthesia because of its tendency to depress the respiratory and circulatory systems to a lesser extent and its association with less pain during injection. However, the relative potency of these two intravenous anesthetics has not been fully determined.
methodsIn this randomized double-blind trial, 232 patients undergoing elective hysteroscopy were allocated to 8 groups (n = 29 each) receiving ciprofol (0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5 mg/kg) or propofol (1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 mg/kg) as a single intravenous bolus. Dose-response relationships were analyzed using probit regression to estimate ED50(dose giving a 50% response) and ED95(dose giving a 95% response) and nonlinear regression (sigmoidal Emax model) to validate curve fitting. The primary endpoint was the success rates of anesthesia induction (MOAA/S ≤1 within 2 min).
resultsData from 230 patients were available for analysis. The ED95 of ciprofol [0.53 mg/kg, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.48–0.60] was non-overlapping with propofol (2.16 mg/kg, 95% CI 1.96–2.45), confirming the relative potency ratio for the two drugs 4.1 (95% CI 2.4–9.0). Ciprofol showed significantly lower incidences of injection pain (0% vs. 34.5%, P<0.01) and respiratory depression (27.6% vs. 55.2%, P<0.05) at doses around the ED50.
conclusionCiprofol demonstrated a 4.1:1.0 potency ratio over propofol with superior safety in patients undergoing painless hysteroscopy, supporting its use as an alternative for brief procedures requiring rapid anesthesia induction and recovery.
trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier ChiCTR2200059853, May 13, 2022.
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.