Table-II.

Descriptive analysis of success of sedation.

Study ID	Comparator	Outcome	Result
Chen 2024	Remimazolam	1. Success rate of sedation, which needed the following requirements to be satisfied at the same time: a. collaborate to accomplish tracheal intubation; b. no rescue sedative; c. no rescue local anesthetic.	1. The success rates of sedation in groups remimazolam (0.093mg/kg) and dexmed were 93.3% and 86.7%, respectively, which were higher than that in remimazolam (0.073mg/kg) (58.6%) (p=0.002).
			2. Compared with both remimazolam groups, dexmed group had more patients with good intubation conditions. However, the outcome did not differ between the two remimazolam groups.
		2. Good intubation conditions were defined as intubation comfort score ≤ 2, cough score ≤ 1, and post-intubation score = 1.
Xu 2024	Remimazolam	1. Incidence of intraoperative awareness	1. No statistical significant difference between remimazolam and dexmed
		2. Bronchoscopy feasibility (extent of coughing, vocal cords movements, and limb movements; scored 3 to 12 with 3 representing the optimal score and 12 the worst one)
			2. Scores in remimazolam group significantly better at T2 (immediately after passing the bronchoscope next to the glottis) but not later.
Zhou 2024	Remimazolam	Interruption rate, defined as body movements or coughing, making the operating physicians suspend the operation for physical restraint or anesthesiologists administering rescue medication.	The interruption rate was 8.2 % in the remimazolam group and 39.2 % in the dexmed group (P < 0.001)
Chen 2022	Remimazolam	Successful procedure (Not defined)	Successful completion rate of the procedure was 94.52% in the remimazolam group and 91.78% in the dexmed group with no statistical significant difference.
Pertzov 2022	Propofol	NR	NR
Chouhan 2023	Midazolam Propofol	Composite score by consisting five different parameters, i.e., sedation, calmness, respiratory response, physical movement, and facial tension. Each parameter was given a score of 1–5. Ideal: 5–10; Acceptable: 11–15, and Unacceptable: >15	Mean composite score of dexmed group was ideal showing better patient tolerance and cooperation compared to midazolam and propofol groups.
Kim 2021	Midazolam	NR	NR
Kumari 2021	Midazolam	NR	NR
Magazine 2021	Midazolam	Composite score by consisting five different parameters, i.e., sedation, calmness, respiratory response, physical movement, and facial tension. Each parameter was given a score of 1–5. Ideal: 5–10; Acceptable: 11–15, and Unacceptable: >15	The composite score was in the ideal category in 24 patients in dexmedetomidine group and 21 in midazolam group, at nasopharynx (P=0.234). The corresponding values at the level of trachea were 23 and 16 (P=0.023).
Yuan 2016	Propofol	Cough and discomfort scores rated by bronchoscopist and patient	No statistical significant difference between the two groups
Lin 2020	Propofol	Wakefulness, hearing/seeing during sedation, and tolerance by patient	Patients in the dexmedetomidine group were more likely to report wakefulness , hearing something, seeing something than those in the propofol group. In terms of tolerance, patients in the dexmedetomidine group were more likely to perceive procedure-related symptoms.
Magazine 2020	Midazolam	Composite score by consisting five different parameters, i.e., sedation, calmness, respiratory response, physical movement, and facial tension. Each parameter was given a score of 1–5. Ideal: 5–10; Acceptable: 11–15, and Unacceptable: >15	Total composite score did not differ significantly between dexmedetomidine and midazolam group at nasopharynx or at the level of trachea.
Liao 2012	Midazolam	Discomfort score	No statistical significant difference between the two groups
Ryu 2012	Remifentanil	NR	NR
Goneppanavar 2015	Midazolam	Composite score by consisting five different parameters, i.e., sedation, calmness, respiratory response, physical movement, and facial tension. Each parameter was given a score of 1–5. Ideal: 5–10; Acceptable: 11–15, and Unacceptable: >15	The composite score was ideal or acceptable in 15 patients in midazolam group and 26 patients in dexmed group. The mean scores were 14.48 ±3.65 in midazolam group and 9.41 ±3.13 in dexmed group (p<0.001).
Riachy 2017	Alfentanil	Bronchoscopy score which was computed by combining threevariables graded 1–4: movement of the vocal cords, cough occurrence and limb movement. The final bronchoscopyscore varied between 3 and 12 where 3 represented the optimal score and 12 represented the worst score	No statistically significant differences in the mean bronchoscopy score were found between the groups.
Zhang 2021	Fentanyl	NR	NR

NR, not reported.