ArticleJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology
Comparative efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol in hysteroscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology. 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
Background and Aims: Hysteroscopy is a common gynecological procedure requiring reliable sedation to ensure patient comfort during cervical dilation and endometrial manipulation. Propofol is frequently chosen for its rapid onset and ease of titration but is linked to complications including injection pain, hypotension, and respiratory depression. Ciprofol, a newer propofol analog, may provide similar anesthetic performance with fewer side effects. This meta-analysis aims to compare the clinical effectiveness and risk profile of ciprofol with those of propofol in hysteroscopic sedation. Material and Methods: This present review was designed and structured in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses framework. We included randomized controlled trials that compared ciprofol with propofol for sedation during hysteroscopy. A comprehensive search was carried out in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, encompassing research available through July 2025. The primary outcome was the success rate of hysteroscopy, while secondary outcomes included the time required for induction and recovery, and safety-related events such as injection pain, episodes of hypotension or hypoxemia, and body movements that interfered with the procedure. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Results: Six trials involving 1,768 patients (882 ciprofol; 886 propofol) met inclusion criteria. Ciprofol provided equivalent efficacy and similar induction and recovery times. It correlated with a decrease in the incidence of pain during injection (mean difference (MD) = O.O8, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.03,0.20], Conclusion: Ciprofol matches propofol's performance while reducing key adverse effects, making it a potentially safer option for older or medically fragile patients. Larger multicenter trials and cost-effectiveness studies are needed to guide clinical practice.
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.