Cited by 133Anesthesia and Sedative AgentsAnesthesia and Pain ManagementNausea and vomiting management

Comparison of remimazolam-based and propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia on postoperative quality of recovery: A randomized non-inferiority trial

Open access
Choi, Jeong Yeon, Lee, Hye Sun, Kim, Ji Young, Han, Dong Woo, Yang, Ju Yeon, Kim, Min Jae, Song, Young·2022·Journal of Clinical Anesthesia

Abstract

Study objective The quality of recovery (QoR) of remimazolam-based and propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia was compared as measured by QoR-15 scores. Design A prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial. Setting An operating room, a post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), and a hospital ward. Patients Female patients (n = 140; 20-65 years) scheduled for open thyroidectomy were enrolled and randomly assigned to the remimazolam or propofol group. Interventions The remimazolam group received continuous remimazolam infusions and effect-site target-controlled remifentanil infusions. The propofol group received effect-site target-controlled infusions of propofol and remifentanil. Measurements The primary outcome was QoR-15 on postoperative day 1 (POD1). The mean difference between the groups was compared against a non-inferiority margin of -8. Secondary outcomes were QoR-15 on POD2, hemodynamic data, time to lose and recover consciousness, sedation score upon PACU admission, pain, and postoperative nausea and vomiting profiles at the PACU and ward. Group-time interaction effects in hemodynamic data and QoR-15 were analyzed using a linear mixed model. Main results The total QoR-15 score on POD1 in the remimazolam group was non-inferior to that in the propofol group (mean [SD] 111.2 [18.8] vs. 109.1 [18.9]; mean difference [95% CI] 2.1 [-4.2, 8.5]; p = 0.002 for non-inferiority). The QoR-15 score on POD2 was comparable between the groups, and no group-ti…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinane.2022.110955

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 33 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Choi, J. Y., Lee, H. S., Kim, J. Y., Han, D. W., Yang, J. Y., Kim, M. J., & Song, Y.
Affiliations
Yonsei University (KR)
Corresponding author
Song, Young
Venue
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-11
Volume
82
Pages
110955
ISSN
0952-8180 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4293242992
Cited by
133
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 4
FWCI
33.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Anesthesia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • YUHSpace (Yonsei University Medical Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Anesthesia and Sedative Agents
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Anesthesia and Pain Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nausea and vomiting management
Keywords
remimazolam, propofol, total intravenous anesthesia, quality of recovery, QoR-15, open thyroidectomy, remifentanil, target-controlled infusion, postoperative pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting, hemodynamic stability, post-anesthesia care unit, non-inferiority, female patients, sedation, analgesic requirement, recovery time
MeSH terms
Remifentanil, Anesthesia Recovery Period, Anesthesia, General, Anesthesia, Intravenous, Benzodiazepines, Female, Humans, Prospective Studies, Propofol, Anesthetics, Intravenous

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review