SynthesisPeerJ2026
Comparison of the safety and efficacy of remimazolam for sedation during bronchoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in PeerJ, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Clinical study of remimazolam combined with ultrasound-guided superior laryngeal nerve block in elderly patients with coronary heart disease undergoing bronchoscopy.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of remimazolam Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines and Cochrane Handbook recommendations (PROSPERO CRD420251071986). Databases (EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central, Web of Science) were searched from inception to May 14, 2025. Included studies were RCTs comparing intravenous remimazolam to comparator sedatives in adults (≥18 years) undergoing bronchoscopy. Primary outcome was procedural success rate (completion without rescue sedation). Secondary outcomes included onset time, wake-up time, procedure duration, patient satisfaction, and adverse events (hypotension, hypoxemia, tachycardia, bradycardia, hypertension). Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2. Data were pooled using random-effects models, reporting mean differences (MD) or odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: 13 RCTs ( Conclusion: Remimazolam is a highly effective and safe sedative for bronchoscopy. It offers superior procedural success and faster recovery compared to dexmedetomidine and midazolam, while matching the high success rate of propofol. Its key safety advantage is significantly reduced hypotension risk compared to propofol, making it particularly suitable for vulnerable patients. Remimazolam represents a valuable addition to sedation options for this procedure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.