Title: Safety and efficacy of ciprofol versus propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-
analysis
Version: 0 Date: 04 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Overall, this manuscript presents a well-conducted meta-analysis that provides valuable insights
into the use of ciprofol versus propofol for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy. The findings
are clinically relevant, particularly regarding the safety profile of ciprofol, which could improve
patient experience and reduce adverse effects during gastrointestinal procedures. The paper
is well-written and informative, though some minor improvements in clarity and detail could
enhance the manuscript further.
Strengths:
The manuscript provides a thorough and systematic analysis of randomized controlled trials,
ensuring a high level of evidence for the comparisons drawn.
The choice of outcome measures is appropriate for assessing both the clinical efficacy and safety
of the anesthetic agents.
The statistical analyses are robust, and the reporting of results is clear and comprehensive,
including subgroup analyses.
Suggestions for Improvement:
The introduction could benefit from a brief discussion on the mechanism of action of both drugs
(ciprofol and propofol), providing a deeper understanding of how ciprofol might reduce side
effects compared to propofol.
The manuscript could delve a bit more into the clinical implications of the findings. For example,
how would the lower incidence of adverse events (injection pain, respiratory depression) affect
clinical practice, especially in high-risk populations?
While the study considers various adverse events, the authors could briefly discuss any potential
benefits or trade-offs of ciprofol, particularly its higher potency. This could raise awareness
about how this may influence dosing protocols and patient safety.
The limitations section could be expanded to address potential publication bias, heterogeneity
among studies, and the lack of data on long-term outcomes.
Minor Concerns:
Typographical errors such as "cipepofol" should be corrected for consistency in terminology
(e.g., "ciprofol").
The clarity of certain sentences can be improved for ease of reading. For instance, some complex
sentence structures could be simplified.
Title: Safety and efficacy of ciprofol versus propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-
analysis
Version: 0 Date: 04 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Overall, this manuscript presents a well-conducted meta-analysis that provides valuable insights
into the use of ciprofol versus propofol for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy. The findings
are clinically relevant, particularly regarding the safety profile of ciprofol, which could improve
patient experience and reduce adverse effects during gastrointestinal procedures. The paper
is well-written and informative, though some minor improvements in clarity and detail could
enhance the manuscript further.
Strengths:
The manuscript provides a thorough and systematic analysis of randomized controlled trials,
ensuring a high level of evidence for the comparisons drawn.
The choice of outcome measures is appropriate for assessing both the clinical efficacy and safety
of the anesthetic agents.
The statistical analyses are robust, and the reporting of results is clear and comprehensive,
including subgroup analyses.
Suggestions for Improvement:
The introduction could benefit from a brief discussion on the mechanism of action of both drugs
(ciprofol and propofol), providing a deeper understanding of how ciprofol might reduce side
effects compared to propofol.
The manuscript could delve a bit more into the clinical implications of the findings. For example,
how would the lower incidence of adverse events (injection pain, respiratory depression) affect
clinical practice, especially in high-risk populations?
While the study considers various adverse events, the authors could briefly discuss any potential
benefits or trade-offs of ciprofol, particularly its higher potency. This could raise awareness
about how this may influence dosing protocols and patient safety.
The limitations section could be expanded to address potential publication bias, heterogeneity
among studies, and the lack of data on long-term outcomes.
Minor Concerns:
Typographical errors such as "cipepofol" should be corrected for consistency in terminology
(e.g., "ciprofol").
The clarity of certain sentences can be improved for ease of reading. For instance, some complex
sentence structures could be simplified.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Safety and efficacy of ciprofol versus propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-
analysis
Version: 0 Date: 04 Dec 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Overall, this manuscript presents a well-conducted meta-analysis that provides valuable insights
into the use of ciprofol versus propofol for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy. The findings
are clinically relevant, particularly regarding the safety profile of ciprofol, which could improve
patient experience and reduce adverse effects during gastrointestinal procedures. The paper
is well-written and informative, though some minor improvements in clarity and detail could
enhance the manuscript further.
Strengths:
The manuscript provides a thorough and systematic analysis of randomized controlled trials,
ensuring a high level of evidence for the comparisons drawn.
The choice of outcome measures is appropriate for assessing both the clinical efficacy and safety
of the anesthetic agents.
The statistical analyses are robust, and the reporting of results is clear and comprehensive,
including subgroup analyses.
Suggestions for Improvement:
The introduction could benefit from a brief discussion on the mechanism of action of both drugs
(ciprofol and propofol), providing a deeper understanding of how ciprofol might reduce side
effects compared to propofol.
The manuscript could delve a bit more into the clinical implications of the findings. For example,
how would the lower incidence of adverse events (injection pain, respiratory depression) affect
clinical practice, especially in high-risk populations?
While the study considers various adverse events, the authors could briefly discuss any potential
benefits or trade-offs of ciprofol, particularly its higher potency. This could raise awareness
about how this may influence dosing protocols and patient safety.
The limitations section could be expanded to address potential publication bias, heterogeneity
among studies, and the lack of data on long-term outcomes.
Minor Concerns:
Typographical errors such as "cipepofol" should be corrected for consistency in terminology
(e.g., "ciprofol").
The clarity of certain sentences can be improved for ease of reading. For instance, some complex
sentence structures could be simplified.
assistant