ArticleTherapeutic advances in drug safety2026
Efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for sedation in hysteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Therapeutic advances in drug safety, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hysteroscopy, a popular outpatient gynecological procedure, often requires sedation due to pain caused by endometrial manipulation and cervical dilation. Propofol, the current standard sedative, has adverse effects like respiratory depression, hypotension, and injection discomfort. Ciprofol, a novel GABA-A receptor agonist and structural analog of propofol, might be a safer choice while maintaining efficacy. Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for sedation during hysteroscopy. Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data sources and methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. RCTs comparing ciprofol and propofol for hysteroscopic sedation were sourced from PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Data extraction, quality assessment (ROB-2), and analysis were conducted independently. Outcomes included efficacy, safety, and recovery metrics. Results: Six RCTs with 1890 patients were met with inclusion. Ciprofol achieved similar sedative success as propofol (risk ratio (RR) = 1.00, 95% CI: 1.00-1.00) and surpassed propofol in important safety outcomes. It significantly reduced intraoperative body movements (RR = 0.53), injection pain (RR = 0.13), hypotension (RR = 0.58), and respiratory depression (RR = 0.67), while increasing eyelash reflex suppression (MD = 0.24). Ciprofol was also associated with a slightly longer recovery time compared to propofol (MD = 0.80 min). Bradycardia incidence and procedure duration did not differ significantly. Conclusion: Ciprofol displays a better safety profile, including enhanced hemodynamic and respiratory stability and decreased injection discomfort, and is just as effective as propofol for sedation during hysteroscopy. According to these results, ciprofol is a safe alternative to propofol for hysteroscopy. It is advised that further multicenter studies are required to confirm its effectiveness across broader populations. Trial registration: The meta-analysis has been registered with PROSPERO. The registration number is CRD420251091116.
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.