Trial reportFrontiers in medicine2026
Ciprofol-etomidate versus propofol-etomidate for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a randomized, double-blind controlled clinical trial.
Trial report 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Explore the clinical efficacy and safety of ciprofol-etomidate (C-E) versus propofol-etomidate (P-E) for gastrointestinal endoscopy sedation, and generate hypotheses for subsequent prospective pre-registered trials. Methods: A prospective, double-blind, randomized, positive-controlled exploratory trial enrolled 240 adults (120 per group). Exploratory outcomes included hemodynamics, adverse events, and Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire (CFQ) scores. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis was primary, with per-protocol analysis (PPA, Results: C-E group showed significantly lower CFQ Bimodal scores ≥4, postoperative dizziness incidence, and blood pressure fluctuations (>20% baseline; all Conclusion: This retrospective registered exploratory study tentatively suggests C-E may offer potential advantages in hemodynamic stability, respiratory safety, and reduced post-procedural fatigue/dizziness for low-risk (ASA I ~ II) patients. Findings are hypothesis-generating and require validation via prospective pre-registered trials. Systematic review registration: https://www.chictr.org.cn/indexEN.html, identifier ChiCTR2500107221.
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.