SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2026
Clinical safety, tolerability, and efficacy of fospropofol disodium for sedation: a systematic review.
Synthesis in European journal of clinical 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeFospropofol disodium (fospropofol) is a water-soluble prodrug of propofol with a distinct pharmacological and tolerability profile. However, evidence regarding the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of fospropofol across broader sedation contexts and different comparators remains insufficiently synthesized. This systematic review summarized current research findings on fospropofol to clarify its clinical role and guide future research.
methodsThis systematic review was registered prior to initiation (PROSPERO CRD42023477740). Comprehensive searches were performed in PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 26 August 2026. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating fospropofol for sedation and reporting extractable efficacy or safety outcomes were eligible. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated according to the GRADE approach. Meta-analysis was performed for clinically comparable evidence groups, with other findings synthesized according to SWiM principles.
resultsThis systematic review included 10 original studies, comprising six procedural-sedation trials and four trials for ICU sedation. Quantitative synthesis was conducted for two comparable evidence groups, whereas the remaining outcomes were synthesized narratively. In three endoscopic procedural-sedation trials, fospropofol 6.5 mg/kg achieved a higher sedation success than 2 mg/kg (RR 3.27, 95% CI 2.62-4.08). In mechanically ventilated ICU patients, hypotension risk did not clearly differ between fospropofol and propofol (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.67-1.28). Procedural studies showed a dose-dependent pattern in sedation efficacy, whereas ICU studies generally reported comparable target-sedation attainment between fospropofol and comparator sedatives. Paresthesia/pruritus was commonly reported, while rates of cardiorespiratory adverse events varied across settings and doses and showed no consistent comparative advantage for fospropofol. Evidence for injection pain and satisfaction was limited. Certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low, mainly because of risk of bias and imprecision.
conclusionsFospropofol can provide effective sedation across procedural and ICU settings, but its efficacy and safety profiles vary according to dose, comparator, and clinical setting. Higher doses may improve procedural-sedation efficacy but may also increase adverse effects in some settings. Current evidence does not establish a consistent cardiorespiratory safety advantage for fospropofol over other sedatives, and further adequately powered randomized trials are needed to clarify its comparative safety and optimal clinical role.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42911252What 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.