SynthesisBrazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)
Ciprofol versus propofol for sedation in colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier). 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCiprofol has emerged as a potential alternative sedative with improved safety and efficacy. However, comparative data for colonoscopy sedation remain limited.
methodsA systematic search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science identified RCTs published through August 2025. Studies included patients undergoing colonoscopy using ciprofol or propofol, reporting relevant efficacy or safety outcomes. Risk Ratios (RRs) and Mean Differences (MDs) were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model and 95% Confidence Intervals. The heterogeneity was assessed with I² statistics and Cochrane Q test. Primary outcomes were procedure success rate and patient satisfaction (assessed on a 1-to-10 scale). Secondary outcomes included sedation onset time(s), respiratory depression, injection pain, and hemodynamic adverse events (hypotension and bradycardia). The statistical analyses were performed in R software (version 4.4.1.)
resultsThree RCTs with 645 patients were included. Colonoscopy success rates were similar between ciprofol and propofol (RR = 1.005; 95% CI 0.992-1.019). Ciprofol showed a lower risk of respiratory depression (RR = 0.24; 95% CI 0.08-0.71), injection pain (RR = 0.04; 95% CI 0.01-0.15), and hypotension (RR = 0.85; 95% CI 0.75-0.96). Patient satisfaction was slightly higher with ciprofol (MD = 0.18; 95% CI 0.08-0.29). No significant differences were found in sedation onset time (s) (MD = 2.49s; 95% CI -3.77-8.74) or bradycardia (RR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.44-1.77).
conclusionCiprofol provides comparable efficacy to propofol for colonoscopy sedation, with a lower incidence of respiratory depression, injection pain, and hypotension. Patient satisfaction was slightly higher with ciprofol, while bradycardia occurrence was similar. These findings suggest ciprofol as a promising alternative, though further large-scale studies are needed to confirm its clinical benefits.
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.