SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Ciprofol versus propofol for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy: a dose-stratified systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
Background: We compared ciprofol with propofol for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy, focusing on dose, recovery, induction, satisfaction, and adverse events. Methods: PubMed and Embase were searched through May 2026 for randomized controlled trials in adults undergoing painless gastrointestinal endoscopy. We pooled weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes using random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool. The protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251088249). Results: Eleven trials (2,084 participants) met the criteria. Recovery was statistically longer with ciprofol (WMD 0.83 min, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.49; P = 0.01), but the absolute difference was under 1 min; the difference was observed at 0.4 and 0.5 mg/kg. Induction time and physician and patient satisfaction did not differ significantly. Ciprofol was associated with fewer reported episodes of hypotension (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72-0.90), injection pain (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.08-0.22), respiratory depression (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27-0.83), and hypoxemia (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.42-0.96). Conclusion: Ciprofol and propofol produced broadly comparable procedural outcomes. The apparent advantages for selected adverse events and the dose-related recovery pattern are uncertain because all trials were conducted in China, several pooled outcomes were highly heterogeneous, outcome definitions varied, and publication bias was possible. The dose-stratified findings are exploratory, and the results are hypothesis-generating and require confirmation in larger international trials. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251088249, identifier PROSPERO CRD420251088249.
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.