ArticleYonsei medical journal2026
Comparative Safety of Intravenous Sedatives for Bronchoscopy: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.
Article in Yonsei medical journal, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe selection of sedatives for bronchoscopy procedures remains debated. This study evaluates the safety of intravenous midazolam, propofol, dexmedetomidine, and remimazolam as sedative agents during flexible bronchoscopy. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register. Between-group comparisons were estimated using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% credible intervals (95% CIs). Surface under the cumulative rank curve (SUCRA) plots were produced. The rate of hypoxemia was the primary outcome.
resultsTwenty-four randomized controlled trials involving 4010 patients were included. Baseline variables were generally well balanced across sedative agents in the transitivity analysis, and the node-splitting approach demonstrated a high degree of concordance among the comparisons. The NMA results indicate that remimazolam was significantly associated with a lower rate of hypoxemia than midazolam (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.79) and propofol (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.69). Based on their SUCRA values, the ranking of the four sedative agents from most to least favorable was intravenous remimazolam, followed by dexmedetomidine, midazolam, and propofol. The probability of intravenous remimazolam being the most effective treatment was 93.4%. The SUCRA values also showed that midazolam had the lowest risk of hypotension (79.6%), and propofol had the lowest risk of bradycardia (90.4%).
conclusionThese NMA findings suggest that, in terms of reducing the risk of hypoxemia, intravenous remimazolam is the safest sedative agent for patients undergoing bronchoscopy.
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.