Title: Safety and efficacy of ciprofol versus propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-
analysis
Version: 0 Date: 29 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Amira A A Othman
Reviewer's report:
Abstract:
1. Emphasize statistical tests used to support conclusions, particularly for crucial metrics like
sedation success rate and adverse reaction outcomes.
2. Emphasize the study's novelty and contribution to current research in the abstract's final
sentence.
Introduction:
3. Include new advancements or studies on ciprofol's use outside of gastrointestinal procedures
to enhance the case for its assessment.
4. Clearly explain the gap in the literature that your meta-analysis addresses, such as the need
for age-specific safety and efficacy data on ciprofol.
Methods:
5. Describe the inclusion/exclusion criteria, including how language barriers (if any) were
addressed.
6. Explain how the 17 studies were selected after assessing 1032 publications for repeatability.
7. Explain in greater detail how heterogeneity was addressed (for example, thresholds for
switching between fixed and random effects models).
8. Indicate whether publication bias (more than just a funnel plot) was statistically evaluated,
e.g., Egger's test.
9. Describe how potential biases (such as funding sources and study quality) were handled in
individual studies.
Results:
10. The findings section is detailed but overcrowded. Use bullet points or a summary table to
emphasize significant outcomes such as sedative efficacy, induction time, and adverse events.
11. Explain why younger patients may have different outcomes (such as longer induction
durations) than older people.
12. Figures (e.g., bias assessment, forest plots) might use more explicit legends to help readers
new to meta-analysis norms.
Discussion:
13. Discuss the clinical implications of ciprofol's decreased adverse event rates, particularly the
possible impact on elderly patients and those with comorbidities.
14. Discuss how your findings compare to those of other studies evaluating anesthetic
alternatives to propofol.
15. Strengthen the constraints by addressing study design variability and the insufficient
geographical diversity of the included studies.
Conclusion:
15. Add specific recommendations for clinicians considering ciprofol, e.g., its suitability for
elderly patients or specific procedural contexts.
General Notes:
16. The manuscript needs review for minor grammatical errors and awkward phrasing.
Title: Safety and efficacy of ciprofol versus propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-
analysis
Version: 0 Date: 29 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Amira A A Othman
Reviewer's report:
Abstract:
1. Emphasize statistical tests used to support conclusions, particularly for crucial metrics like
sedation success rate and adverse reaction outcomes.
2. Emphasize the study's novelty and contribution to current research in the abstract's final
sentence.
Introduction:
3. Include new advancements or studies on ciprofol's use outside of gastrointestinal procedures
to enhance the case for its assessment.
4. Clearly explain the gap in the literature that your meta-analysis addresses, such as the need
for age-specific safety and efficacy data on ciprofol.
Methods:
5. Describe the inclusion/exclusion criteria, including how language barriers (if any) were
addressed.
6. Explain how the 17 studies were selected after assessing 1032 publications for repeatability.
7. Explain in greater detail how heterogeneity was addressed (for example, thresholds for
switching between fixed and random effects models).
8. Indicate whether publication bias (more than just a funnel plot) was statistically evaluated,
e.g., Egger's test.
9. Describe how potential biases (such as funding sources and study quality) were handled in
individual studies.
Results:
10. The findings section is detailed but overcrowded. Use bullet points or a summary table to
emphasize significant outcomes such as sedative efficacy, induction time, and adverse events.
11. Explain why younger patients may have different outcomes (such as longer induction
durations) than older people.
12. Figures (e.g., bias assessment, forest plots) might use more explicit legends to help readers
new to meta-analysis norms.
Discussion:
13. Discuss the clinical implications of ciprofol's decreased adverse event rates, particularly the
possible impact on elderly patients and those with comorbidities.
14. Discuss how your findings compare to those of other studies evaluating anesthetic
alternatives to propofol.
15. Strengthen the constraints by addressing study design variability and the insufficient
geographical diversity of the included studies.
Conclusion:
15. Add specific recommendations for clinicians considering ciprofol, e.g., its suitability for
elderly patients or specific procedural contexts.
General Notes:
16. The manuscript needs review for minor grammatical errors and awkward phrasing.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Safety and efficacy of ciprofol versus propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-
analysis
Version: 0 Date: 29 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Amira A A Othman
Reviewer's report:
Abstract:
1. Emphasize statistical tests used to support conclusions, particularly for crucial metrics like
sedation success rate and adverse reaction outcomes.
2. Emphasize the study's novelty and contribution to current research in the abstract's final
sentence.
Introduction:
3. Include new advancements or studies on ciprofol's use outside of gastrointestinal procedures
to enhance the case for its assessment.
4. Clearly explain the gap in the literature that your meta-analysis addresses, such as the need
for age-specific safety and efficacy data on ciprofol.
Methods:
5. Describe the inclusion/exclusion criteria, including how language barriers (if any) were
addressed.
6. Explain how the 17 studies were selected after assessing 1032 publications for repeatability.
7. Explain in greater detail how heterogeneity was addressed (for example, thresholds for
switching between fixed and random effects models).
8. Indicate whether publication bias (more than just a funnel plot) was statistically evaluated,
e.g., Egger's test.
9. Describe how potential biases (such as funding sources and study quality) were handled in
individual studies.
Results:
10. The findings section is detailed but overcrowded. Use bullet points or a summary table to
emphasize significant outcomes such as sedative efficacy, induction time, and adverse events.
11. Explain why younger patients may have different outcomes (such as longer induction
durations) than older people.
12. Figures (e.g., bias assessment, forest plots) might use more explicit legends to help readers
new to meta-analysis norms.
Discussion:
13. Discuss the clinical implications of ciprofol's decreased adverse event rates, particularly the
possible impact on elderly patients and those with comorbidities.
14. Discuss how your findings compare to those of other studies evaluating anesthetic
alternatives to propofol.
15. Strengthen the constraints by addressing study design variability and the insufficient
geographical diversity of the included studies.
Conclusion:
15. Add specific recommendations for clinicians considering ciprofol, e.g., its suitability for
elderly patients or specific procedural contexts.
General Notes:
16. The manuscript needs review for minor grammatical errors and awkward phrasing.
assistant