ReviewCureus2026
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam Versus Propofol for Sedation in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Propofol is the cornerstone sedative for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy but is associated with dose-dependent cardiorespiratory depression. Remimazolam, a novel ultrashort-acting benzodiazepine with a specific antagonist (flumazenil), may offer a safer profile. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of remimazolam versus propofol for sedation in adult patients undergoing GI endoscopic procedures. We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception to January 5, 2026. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intravenous remimazolam with propofol for sedation during GI endoscopy were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of a composite of cardiorespiratory adverse events (hypotension, respiratory depression/hypoxemia, bradycardia). Secondary outcomes included sedation success rate, recovery times, and patient/physician satisfaction. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was quantified by I². 14 RCTs (n=2,883 patients) were included. Remimazolam significantly reduced the risk of the composite cardiorespiratory adverse event compared to propofol (risk ratio (RR) = 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.27-0.44; I² = 56%). Sedation success rates were comparable between groups. Recovery profiles were similar or favorable for remimazolam in several studies, and it was associated with significantly less injection pain and higher patient satisfaction in some trials. Remimazolam offers a superior safety profile regarding cardiorespiratory stability compared to propofol for sedation in GI endoscopy, while maintaining non-inferior efficacy. These findings support remimazolam as a valuable alternative, especially for patients at higher risk of sedation-related complications.
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.