ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2026
Efficacy and safety of remimazolam versus propofol in elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 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.
- Precision Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Older Adults: Brain Vulnerability and Recovery.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis study was undertaken to compare the efficacy and safety of remimazolam versus propofol for sedation in elderly patients (≥60 years old) undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov were used to perform a thorough literature search from their inception to December 2025. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed using RevMan. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to pool risk ratios (RRs) along with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for dichotomous outcomes. The inverse variance method was used to pool mean differences (MDs) with 95% CI. Results: This meta-analysis included 11 RCTs consisting of 2456 participants. Remimazolam significantly reduced the risk of overall adverse events (RR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.42-0.86), injection site pain (RR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.12-0.34), hypotension (RR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.35-0.59), bradycardia (RR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.34-0.77), need for vasopressors (RR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.23-0.67), hypoxemia (RR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.29-0.59), and respiratory depression (RR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.29-0.62) compared with propofol. There were no statistically significant differences between remimazolam and propofol in sedation success, procedure success, procedure time, onset time, time to full alertness, time to discharge, patient satisfaction, endoscopist satisfaction, postoperative nausea and vomiting, or prolonged sedation. Conclusion: Our analysis suggests that remimazolam is safer compared to propofol for sedation in endoscopic procedures.
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.