SynthesisBMC anesthesiology2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of remimazolam versus propofol in bronchoscopic procedures: a GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC anesthesiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBronchoscopy is a widely performed diagnostic and therapeutic intervention in pulmonary medicine. Sedatives are recommended with it to improve patient comfort and procedural outcomes. Propofol, the traditional sedative, carries risks of hemodynamic and respiratory adverse events, particularly in elderly or comorbid patients. Remimazolam, an ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine, is being explored as a potential alternative with a better safety profile.
objectiveTo systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam versus propofol for bronchoscopic procedures. STUDY
designSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
methodsPubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP were searched upto May 23, 2025 for RCTs comparing remimazolam to propofol in bronchoscopy. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool, and random-effects models were used to pool outcomes in R software. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
resultsSix RCTs met the eligibility criteria and were included, involving 718 patients (359 in each group, mean ages 49.7 to 71.5 years, ASA status I-IV). No significant differences were observed in time to loss of consciousness, time to awake, or successful sedations. However, remimazolam use was associated with a significantly lower risks of hypotension (Risk Ratio [RR] 0.46, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.30–0.71, moderate certainty), hypoxemia (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.29–0.50, moderate certainty) and injection pain (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01–0.19, moderate certainty).
conclusionRemimazolam provides comparable sedation efficacy during bronchoscopy to propofol, but with a better safety profile, showing lower risks of hypotension, hypoxemia, and injection pain. High-quality, adequately powered studies are needed, however, to confirm these findings and guide sedation strategies for specific patient needs.
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.