Trial reportRevista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)2026
Ciprofol provides safer sedation than propofol in minor gynecologic surgery: evidence from a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe quality of sedation critically affects the success and safety of minor gynecologic surgeries. Ciprofol, a novel analog of propofol, offers rapid onset and recovery with a potentially improved safety profile. This study compared the efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol for sedation during minor gynecologic surgery.
methodsIn this single-center, randomized, double-blind trial, 342 patients scheduled for minor gynecologic procedures were assigned to receive either ciprofol or propofol for anesthesia induction and maintenance. The primary outcomes were anesthesia onset time and surgical success rate. Secondary outcomes included recovery time, hemodynamic stability, body movement, injection pain, satisfaction ratings, and adverse events such as respiratory depression and hypotension.
resultsBoth agents achieved a 100% anesthesia success rate, with comparable onset times (ciprofol: 37.2±10.4 s vs. propofol: 38.7±11.2 s; p=0.214). Ciprofol required a fivefold lower total dose (68.5±31.7 mg vs. 359.6±164.6 mg; p<0.001) and demonstrated superior safety, including fewer body movements (2.4 vs. 15.3%), absence of injection pain (0 vs. 36.5%), and reduced hypotension (10.1 vs. 41.2%; all p<0.001). Satisfaction was higher among surgeons and patients receiving ciprofol.
conclusionCiprofol provides anesthesia efficacy equivalent to propofol with significantly enhanced safety and tolerance, supporting its use as a preferred agent for outpatient gynecologic surgery.
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.