Cited by 75Anesthesia and Sedative AgentsVeterinary Pharmacology and AnesthesiaColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection

Efficacy and safety of remimazolam in endoscopic sedation-A systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Zhu, Xianlin, Wang, Hongbai, Yuan, Su, Li, Yinan, Jia, Yuan, Zhang, Zhe, Yan, Fuxia, Wang, Zaiping·2021·Frontiers in Medicine

Abstract

Background: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam in clinical endoscopic procedure sedation. Methods: The authors searched the databases of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies published until January 2, 2021, that reported remimazolam sedation for endoscopic procedures. The sedative efficiency and the incidence of adverse events were assessed as outcomes. Cochrane Review Manager Software 5.3 was used to perform the statistical analyses. Results: Seven relevant studies involving a total of 1,996 patients were identified. We conducted a meta-analysis of the different controls used in the studies, that is, the placebo, midazolam, and propofol. The results demonstrated that remimazolam had a strong sedative effect, and its sedative efficiency was significantly higher than that of placebo [OR = 0.01, 95% CI: (0.00, 0.10), I2 = 30%, p <0.00001]. The sedative efficiency of remimazolam was significantly higher than that of midazolam [OR = 0.12, 95% CI: (0.08, 0.21), I2 = 0%, p < 0.00001] but lesser than that of propofol [OR = 12.22, 95% CI: (1.58, 94.47), I2 = 0%, p = 0.02]. Regarding the adverse events, remimazolam is associated with a lower incidence of hypotension than placebo and midazolam. Similarly, remimazolam was associated with a lower incidence of hypotension and hypoxemia than propofol. Conclusions: Remimazolam is a safe and effective sedative for patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. The sedative efficiency of remimazolam was significantly higher than that of midazolam but slightly lower than that of propofol. However, the respiration and circulation inhibitory effects of remimazolam were weaker than those of midazolam and propofol.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fmed.2021.655042

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Numerous published clinical experiments have shown the safety and efficacy of remimazolam as an anesthetic during sedative procedures and general anesthesia compared with midazolam or propofol.

    “Compared with midazolam or propofol, numerous published clinical experiments have shown the safety and efficacy of remimazolam as an anesthetic during sedative procedures and general anesthesia (9,10).”

    From Hemodynamic Influences of Remimazolam Versus Propofol During the Induction Period of General Anesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (2023) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Abstract and Results report multiple endoscopic-sedation studies comparing remimazolam with midazolam or propofol, and the Discussion reports favorable efficacy and safety findings. The Discussion mentions one study of remimazolam as a general anesthetic compared with propofol; it does not establish that numerous clinical experiments showed those findings in general anesthesia. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [21]Chen S Wang J Xu X Huang Y Xue S Wu A. The efficacy and safety of remimazolam tosylate versus propofol in patients undergoing colonoscopy: a multicentered, randomized, positive-controlled, phase III clinical trial. Am J Transl Res. (2020) 12: 4594– 603. 32913533 PMC7476156

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhu, X., Wang, H., Yuan, S., Li, Y., Jia, Y., Zhang, Z., Yan, F., & Wang, Z.
Affiliations
  • The Central Hospital of Enshi Tujia and Miao Autonomous Prefecture (CN)
  • Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Yan, Fuxia
  • Wang, Zaiping
Venue
Frontiers in Medicine
Published
2021-07-26
Volume
8
Pages
655042-655042
ISSN
2296-858X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3184472250
Cited by
75
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 12
FWCI
3.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Informationszentrum Lebenswissenschaften (ZB MED) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (81760257)
  • Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Anesthesia and Sedative Agents
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Veterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Keywords
remimazolam, procedural sedation, endoscopy, sedation efficacy, adverse events, hypotension, hypoxemia, midazolam, propofol, benzodiazepines, respiratory depression

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