Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42609364›Full record

Trial reportFrontiers in aging2026

Comparison of anesthesia induction with ciprofol, propofol, and etomidate in elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a single center, prospective, double blind randomized controlled trial.

Yingchao Guan, Gang Zhou, Conghui Wang, Yusong Lin, Minghong Ju, Wen He, Xiaodong Wang

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Frontiers in aging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Yingchao Guan *Department of Anesthesiology, Weihai Municipal Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Weihai, Shandong, China.
Gang Zhou *Department of Anesthesiology, Weihai Municipal Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Weihai, Shandong, China.
Conghui WangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Weihai Municipal Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Weihai, Shandong, China.
Yusong LinDepartment of Anesthesiology, Weihai Municipal Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Weihai, Shandong, China.
Minghong JuDepartment of Anesthesiology, Weihai Municipal Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Weihai, Shandong, China.
Wen HeDepartment of Anesthesiology, Weihai Municipal Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Weihai, Shandong, China.
Xiaodong WangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Weihai Municipal Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Weihai, Shandong, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: We compared benefits and adverse effects of anesthesia induction with ciprofol, propofol, and etomidate in elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy anesthesia. Methods: A total of 391 patients who underwent painless gastrointestinal endoscopy; age ≥ 60 years; ASA I-III were involved between April 30 and 30 December 2025. The primary outcome was hypoxemia or apnea during anesthesia. Secondary outcomes included systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean blood pressure (MBP), heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), SpO Results: No differences were found in hypoxemia and apnea. Except for RR, other hemodynamic and respiratory parameters were significantly different among the groups (p < 0.05), and the degree of blood pressure decline in group E was smaller than groups C and P. Group E patients had lower intraoperative hypotension (p = 0.007) and lower demand for vasoactive drugs (p = 0.006). The injection pain scores in groups C and E were lower, but patients in group E had a higher incidence of myoclonus, and the proportion of coughing and hiccups during endoscopy was higher in group E. The incidence of dizziness was lower in Group C. Conclusion: No significant differences were observed in the incidence of hypoxemia and apnea among three groups. Etomidate has the advantage of stable hemodynamics; however, the incidence of myoclonus, bucking, and hiccups is high. Injection pain occurred less frequently with ciprofol and etomidate, while ciprofol was associated with a low incidence of postoperative dizziness. Clinical Trail Registration: https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=269837, identifier ChiCTR2500101280.

Indexed as

ciprofoletomidategastrointestinal endoscopypropofolrandomized controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID42609364
PMCPMC13478072

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.