SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Incidence of injection pain between ciprofol and propofol after induction of general anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Propofol and ciprofol are commonly used agents for inducing general anesthesia. Although propofol is preferred for its potent sedative effects and quick recovery, it is associated with a higher incidence of injection-related pain. In contrast, ciprofol may help alleviate this pain. However, evidence regarding its advantage in reducing injection pain remains insufficient. This systematic review aimed to assess the frequency of pain during administration tied to the use of ciprofol as well as propofol. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials comparing ciprofol with propofol for the induction of general anesthesia. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. Meta-analyses were performed using Review Manager software. Results: Ten trials with a total of 1,402 patients were studied in this meta-analysis. Research results showed that ciprofol markedly reduced the occurrence of pain from injections when contrasted with propofol, exhibiting a risk ratio (RR) of 0.15 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.11 to 0.20). Ciprofol significantly reduced the incidence of injection pain when the patient was elderly (RR = 0.14, 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.35), and also non-elderly (RR = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.21). In addition, ciprofol significantly reduced the incidence hypotension (RR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.46 to 0.87). A trend toward lower tachycardia was observed with ciprofol, but this did not reach statistical significance (RR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.39-1.01). The GRADE assessment revealed moderate certainty regarding the outcomes associated with injection pain. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) suggested that the cumulative evidence for injection pain and hypotension was sufficient and that further trials are unlikely to change these conclusions. Conclusion: The study revealed that ciprofol significantly decreases the occurrence of injection-related discomfort and was associated with a reduced incidence of hypotension, while a trend toward lower tachycardia was observed. Trial sequential analysis further supported the robustness of these findings. Systematic review registration: CRD420251003081.
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.