Trial reportEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2026
Remimazolam vs. midazolam sedation in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in adults ≥ 65 years: Randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and safety of remimazolam besylate plus propofol for sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a randomized controlled study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Trial
- Precision Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Older Adults: Brain Vulnerability and Recovery.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSafe and effective sedation are important factors when performing gastrointestinal endoscopy. However, clinicians should be cautious when using sedatives in older patients because of their decreased physiological reserves. Remimazolam is an ultrashort active benzodiazepine that has attracted attention because of its efficacy. This study aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of remimazolam compared with midazolam as a sedative for diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in older patients aged ≥ 65 years.
methodsWe randomly assigned patients aged ≥ 65 years who were scheduled for diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. The average induction time, average recovery time, and side effect profile of patients who received remimazolam as a sedative were compared with those of patients who received midazolam.
resultsA total of 120 patients underwent randomization (60 in the remimazolam group and 60 in the midazolam group). Patients who received remimazolam had shorter average induction (mean ± standard deviation, 102.0 ± 77.2 s vs. 327.5 ± 125.3 s, p < 0.001) and recovery times (mean ± standard deviation, 5.8 ± 3.1 min vs. 13.4 ± 7.8 min, p < 0.001) than those who received midazolam. No significant difference in side effect profiles was observed between the groups.
conclusionsIn performing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in older patients, remimazolam can be a good alternative sedative to midazolam, whether used as monotherapy or in combination therapy.
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.