SynthesisFrontiers in neurology
The effect of ciprofol on the incidence of postoperative delirium in adult surgical patients: a meta-analysis and meta-regression.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Cardiac Rehabilitation and Cognitive Impairment: Elective Affinities or Fatal Attraction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically evaluate the impact of ciprofol on the incidence of postoperative delirium (POD) in adult surgical patients and to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in databases including PubMed, Web of Science, OVID, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to identify clinical studies published before October 2025 comparing ciprofol vs. propofol for general anesthesia. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was employed to assess study quality. Meta-analysis and meta-regression were performed using R software to calculate the POD incidence and its 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted to explore sources of heterogeneity. Results: Seven studies involving 4,171 patients were included. The overall POD incidence in the ciprofol group was 11.30% (95% CI: 0.77%-21.83%), which was significantly lower than that in the propofol group (19.51%; 95% CI: 2.51%-36.50%). Subgroup analysis revealed that the advantage of ciprofol in reducing POD incidence was more pronounced in patients undergoing trunk surgery (19.29% vs. 0.56%) and in those receiving total intravenous anesthesia (2.93% vs. 14.33%). Meta-regression did not identify significant correlations between POD incidence and age, sex distribution, or intraoperative hypotension. Significant heterogeneity was observed across studies ( Conclusion: Compared with propofol, ciprofol significantly reduces the risk of POD in surgical patients, with particularly pronounced benefits in those undergoing trunk surgery and receiving total intravenous anesthesia. These findings provide new evidence for perioperative neurocognitive protection. Systematic Review Registration: INPLASY International Platform, registration number: INPLASY202610019, DOI: 10.37766/inplasy2026.1.0019.
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.