This page shows what was measured, who it was measured in, and what that does not settle.
What Propofol does in the body
Putting a person to sleep for surgery, and keeping them asleep or sedated on a ventilator
The brain has a built-in brake: a receptor that lets chloride into a neuron and makes it much harder for that neuron to fire. Propofol grips that receptor and holds the brake on, so at a high enough concentration the cortex and thalamus stop passing signals to each other and consciousness stops. It is extremely fat-soluble, so it reaches the brain within one circulation of the blood and then leaves again as it redistributes into muscle and fat, which is why one injection lasts minutes and why waking is quick and unusually clear.
What happened in people
A single N265M substitution in the GABA-A beta3 subunit completely abolishes propofol's suppression of noxious-evoked movement in mice, while volatile anaesthetics still work in the same animals
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The recorded finding that sits closest to something a person would notice. Written into the record, not signed off, and it carries no population or interval.
NCT02105610 — MYRIAD, volatile anaesthetics versus total intravenous anaesthesia for cardiac surgery (NCT02105610) · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
The limit that matters most
About 17 cents per millilitre at United States pharmacy acquisition cost across only 4 listed generic products — a small supplier base for a drug this essential, and a recurring cause of shortage
Where it acts
Chloride channel of the type A GABA receptor, on cortical, thalamic and brainstem neurons
Kind of result
The kind of result is not recorded
Supervision
Professional supervision is normally required. A regulator classifies this substance in a way that restricts how it is supplied.
What the registries record it as
The substance registry classes this as chemical.
FDA substance registry · YI7VU623SF · read 2026-08-29
Where each sentence above came from
No recorded sentence describes the change this makes in a way that stands on its own. The page opens with what it is taken for instead, and the recorded explanation follows below.
Shown as the opening line on this page.
A limit recorded against this substance. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The four opening statements run to 138 words.
Words this page uses
Four words worth knowing first
Chosen from what this page shows, with each one explained before the word it depends on.
Comparator
A comparator is whatever the treatment was measured against.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like the other runner in a race.
Where that stops being true. A race has one winner. A study can show both arms improved.
What people get wrong. Results are read without asking what the other group got. Beating nothing is not beating a treatment.
The control condition against which the experimental intervention is assessed.
Randomisation
Randomisation means chance decides who gets which treatment.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like a coin toss deciding the groups.
Where that stops being true. A coin toss is fair once. Fairness here comes from doing it for everyone.
What people get wrong. It is thought to make groups identical. It makes them similar on average, including on things nobody measured.
Allocation of participants to arms by a chance process, so that unmeasured factors are balanced in expectation.
Absolute difference
An absolute difference is how many more people in a hundred were affected.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like counting heads in two rooms of a hundred.
Where that stops being true. Heads are easy to count. Study results carry a margin of error too.
What people get wrong. It is confused with a percentage change, which can look far larger.
The arithmetic difference in event rates between arms.
Confidence interval
A confidence interval is the range the true answer is likely to sit in.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like a weather forecast giving a range rather than one number.
Where that stops being true. A forecast range covers tomorrow. This one covers what the study could resolve.
What people get wrong. The middle number is read as the answer. A range crossing zero means no change is still possible.
An interval estimate that would contain the true parameter in a stated proportion of repeated studies.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What happened in people
Each card is one study: the exact question it asked, who was in it, and whether it showed what it set out to show.
Death from any cause at one year after elective coronary artery bypass grafting
✗ The study did not show it
Who was studied
MYRIAD — volatile anaesthetics versus total intravenous anaesthesia for cardiac surgery (NCT02105610)
2.8% volatile versus 3.0% total intravenous anaesthesia; relative risk 0.94, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.29, P=0.71
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. Stopped for futility at the second interim analysis. No secondary outcome and no prespecified adverse event, including myocardial infarction, differed between the groups.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Sterile 1% oil-in-water injectable emulsion for intravenous bolus and infusion, in ampoules, vials and prefilled syringes; delivered by weight-based or target-controlled infusion
Interval reported. 95% CI 0
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
NCT02105610 — MYRIAD, volatile anaesthetics versus total intravenous anaesthesia for cardiac surgery (NCT02105610) · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Local or metastatic breast cancer recurrence after potentially curative resection
✗ The study did not show it
Who was studied
Sessler breast cancer recurrence after regional or general anaesthesia (NCT00418457)
How many people
2132
Study design
Randomised controlled trial at 13 hospitals in 8 countries
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
102 of 1,043 (10%) with paravertebral block plus propofol versus 111 of 1,065 (10%) with sevoflurane plus opioid; hazard ratio 0.97, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.28, P=0.84
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. The secondary endpoint failed too: persistent incisional pain at 6 and 12 months was identical, odds ratio 1.00 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.17, P=0.99). The trial crossed a preplanned futility boundary and was stopped after 11 years of enrolment.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Sterile 1% oil-in-water injectable emulsion for intravenous bolus and infusion, in ampoules, vials and prefilled syringes; delivered by weight-based or target-controlled infusion
Interval reported. 95% CI 0
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
NCT02105610 — MYRIAD, volatile anaesthetics versus total intravenous anaesthesia for cardiac surgery (NCT02105610) · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Occurrence of propofol infusion syndrome in sedated ventilated head-injured adults
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
Cremer retrospective cohort of long-term propofol infusion in head-injured adults
How many people
67
Study design
Retrospective cohort study following five index deaths
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Odds ratio 1.93 for each mg/kg per hour increase in mean propofol dose above 5 mg/kg per hour (95% CI 1.12 to 3.32, P=0.018); 7 of 67 patients judged to have died of the syndrome
Repeated elsewhere
Partially Replicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. Retrospective and single-centre, prompted by a formulation change. It establishes a dose-response association with a rare fatal syndrome, not a rate.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Sterile 1% oil-in-water injectable emulsion for intravenous bolus and infusion, in ampoules, vials and prefilled syringes; delivered by weight-based or target-controlled infusion
Interval reported. 95% CI 1
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
NCT02105610 — MYRIAD, volatile anaesthetics versus total intravenous anaesthesia for cardiac surgery (NCT02105610) · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Frequency of propofol allergy, and tolerance of propofol in adults with specific IgE to egg, soy or peanut
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
Asserhoj investigation of propofol allergy in egg, soy and peanut allergic adults
How many people
793
Study design
Two-part clinical investigation with skin testing and intravenous provocation
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
4 of 153 propofol-exposed patients (2.6%) had confirmed propofol allergy, none with food allergy or specific IgE to egg or soy; no allergic reaction in 171 anaesthetic charts from 99 food-allergic patients
Repeated elsewhere
Partially Replicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. Three of the four confirmed propofol allergies were positive only on intravenous provocation and would have been missed by skin testing alone — a finding about diagnostic practice rather than about food allergy.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Sterile 1% oil-in-water injectable emulsion for intravenous bolus and infusion, in ampoules, vials and prefilled syringes; delivered by weight-based or target-controlled infusion
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
NCT02105610 — MYRIAD, volatile anaesthetics versus total intravenous anaesthesia for cardiac surgery (NCT02105610) · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
RNAWiki holds 4 written-up human studies for this substance, each with the question it asked.
How we know it
Each card names the study, the number of people and what the study set out to measure.
What this does not prove
These summaries were written by a person and have not been signed off as reviewed claims.
Why it matters
A study that failed is as informative as one that worked, and both are here.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim exists, so no exact population, effect size or interval is published yet.
What it changes in the body◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
The path through the body
From what a person takes to what changes. A solid line is a step measured in people. A dashed line is a step nobody has measured that way.
Start
Propofol
What a person takes: Sterile 1% oil-in-water injectable emulsion for intravenous bolus and infusion, in ampoules, vials and prefilled syringes; delivered by weight-based or target-controlled infusion.
The measurement behind this step
The emulsion is the delivery system. Soybean oil provides the lipid phase, purified egg phosphatide the emulsifier and glycerol the tonicity, and the droplet size distribution has to be tight enough that the suspension can go safely into a vein. Because that vehicle supports rapid bacterial growth, presentations either include a growth retardant such as disodium edetate, sodium metabisulfite or benzyl alcohol, or are strictly single-patient with a short in-use time. The lipid load itself is clinically relevant during long infusions and is one reason propofol is not simply run indefinitely.
Getting in
Injected as an oil in water, not as a solution
Propofol will not dissolve in water, so it is delivered as microscopic oil droplets suspended in a milky white emulsion of soybean oil, egg lecithin and glycerol.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
The drug substance is a lipophilic phenol, an oil at room temperature. The 1% emulsion vehicle is the pharmaceutical achievement; the free phenol dissolved in the aqueous phase is responsible for injection pain, and formulations differ in that fraction. The emulsion is also an excellent bacterial growth medium, which is why presentations either carry a retardant such as EDTA or metabisulfite or are single-use with strict handling rules.
NCT02105610 — MYRIAD, volatile anaesthetics versus total intravenous anaesthesia for cardiac surgery (NCT02105610) · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Reaching the cell
It reaches the brain in one circulation
Because it is so fat-soluble it crosses out of the blood into brain tissue almost immediately. Loss of consciousness happens within about half a minute of the injection.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Onset is limited by arm-brain circulation time rather than by permeability. Distribution then follows a three-compartment pattern, and the offset of a single bolus is governed by redistribution into muscle and fat rather than by elimination, which is why a bolus lasts minutes but a long infusion has a context-sensitive half-time that lengthens with duration.
NCT02105610 — MYRIAD, volatile anaesthetics versus total intravenous anaesthesia for cardiac surgery (NCT02105610) · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
What it acts on
It grips the GABA-A receptor at the beta subunit
It binds the brain's main inhibitory receptor, at a site on a different part of the protein from where alcohol or benzodiazepines act.
╌╌Measured in animals. A result in animals says what to test next. It does not say what happens in people.
The measurement behind this step
The site involves asparagine 265 in transmembrane domain 2 of the beta subunit. Mice carrying the beta3(N265M) substitution lose propofol's immobilising action completely and most of its hypnotic action, while enflurane and halothane remain largely effective, which localises the intravenous anaesthetic effect to this residue and shows the volatiles act through a broader set of targets.
NCT02105610 — MYRIAD, volatile anaesthetics versus total intravenous anaesthesia for cardiac surgery (NCT02105610) · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
The change it makes
Chloride floods in and neurons stop firing
The receptor is a gate for chloride ions. Holding it open makes the neuron electrically negative inside and much harder to excite, so signalling across the cortex and thalamus breaks down.
╌╌Measured in animals. A result in animals says what to test next. It does not say what happens in people.
The measurement behind this step
At low micromolar concentrations propofol is a positive allosteric modulator, increasing the response to GABA already present; at higher concentrations it opens the channel directly without GABA. In cortical brain slices from beta3(N265M) mice both the current enhancement and the reduction in spontaneous action potential firing are significantly attenuated, tying the network effect to the same residue as the behaviour.
NCT02105610 — MYRIAD, volatile anaesthetics versus total intravenous anaesthesia for cardiac surgery (NCT02105610) · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
What that does for a person
Unconsciousness, amnesia — and no pain relief at all
The person is unconscious and will remember nothing, but the drug does nothing about pain. That is why an opioid or a local anaesthetic is almost always given alongside it.
──Measured in people. Written by a person from the study named beside the step. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The measurement behind this step
Propofol produces hypnosis and amnesia at concentrations well below those needed for immobility in response to a noxious stimulus, and has no analgesic action at any clinical concentration. It also depresses ventilation and vasomotor tone, so apnoea after induction is expected rather than adverse, and hypotension is the dose-limiting effect in an unwell patient.
NCT02105610 — MYRIAD, volatile anaesthetics versus total intravenous anaesthesia for cardiac surgery (NCT02105610) · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
What that does for a person
It redistributes and is glucuronidated, and waking is unusually clear
The drug moves out of the brain into muscle and fat within minutes, and the liver conjugates it into inactive forms. People wake up quickly and without the hungover feeling older agents left behind.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Clearance exceeds hepatic blood flow, implying substantial extrahepatic metabolism, principally by glucuronidation to inactive conjugates excreted renally. No active metabolite accumulates, which distinguishes propofol from midazolam and is the pharmacological basis of its clear-headed emergence. The comparison that made propofol displace thiopental was quality of recovery, and it is worth naming precisely: quality of recovery is a measured advantage, and no mortality advantage has ever been demonstrated.
NCT02105610 — MYRIAD, volatile anaesthetics versus total intravenous anaesthesia for cardiac surgery (NCT02105610) · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
No suggested links are held for this record, so nothing is hidden from this path.
What we know
The record describes 6 steps from taking it to an effect in a person.
How we know it
Each step names the study behind it in the technical detail beside it.
What this does not prove
A change inside the body is a reason to look. It is not a result in a person.
Why it matters
A reader can see exactly where the chain stops being measured in people.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim binds any of these steps to a named population.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Were people like you studied?
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it, and where the result stops carrying.
Who was studied
People similar to this profile were included.
Nearly anyone having a general anaesthetic, a colonoscopy or a cardioversion in a high-income health system, and most intubated adults sedated in intensive care.
Who is missing from the studies
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What the label states about particular groups
On pediatric, the label states: “Propofol injectable emulsion is not indicated for use in pediatric patients for ICU sedation or for MAC sedation for surgical, nonsurgical or diagnostic procedures as safety and effectiveness have not been established.”
US prescribing information · de351d5f-581d-4768-a4af-fbd8e5bce264 · read 2026-08-30
On older people, the label states: “The effect of age on induction dose requirements for propofol was assessed in an open-label study involving 211 unpremedicated patients with approximately 30 patients in each decade between the ages of 16 and 80.”
US prescribing information · de351d5f-581d-4768-a4af-fbd8e5bce264 · read 2026-08-30
On people who are pregnant, the label states: “Risk Summary Data from randomized controlled trials, cohort studies and case series over several decades with propofol use in pregnant women have not identified a drug-associated risk of major birth defects, miscarriage, or adverse maternal or fetal outcomes.”
US prescribing information · de351d5f-581d-4768-a4af-fbd8e5bce264 · read 2026-08-30
On people who are breastfeeding, the label states: “Risk Summary Based on data from published studies, propofol is present in human milk.”
US prescribing information · de351d5f-581d-4768-a4af-fbd8e5bce264 · read 2026-08-30
On people with reduced liver function, the label states: “The long-term administration of propofol injectable emulsion to patients with hepatic insufficiency has not been evaluated.”
US prescribing information · de351d5f-581d-4768-a4af-fbd8e5bce264 · read 2026-08-30
On people with reduced kidney function, the label states: “Studies to date in patients with normal or impaired renal function have not shown any alteration in renal function with propofol injectable emulsion containing 0.005% disodium edetate.”
US prescribing information · de351d5f-581d-4768-a4af-fbd8e5bce264 · read 2026-08-30
Where the result stopped carrying
Volatile cardioprotection, the hypothesis MYRIAD was built to confirm, failed; and the trial equally failed to show any advantage for the intravenous technique
The regional-anaesthesia-and-propofol cancer recurrence hypothesis failed on its primary and its secondary endpoint
Paediatric intensive care sedation with propofol produced a fatal syndrome described in 1992 and is not an indication on the United States label
The egg and soy allergy contraindication, believed for decades on the strength of six unconfirmed case reports, did not survive investigation
This is a scope explorer, not a diagnosis engine.
It shows who was studied so you can see whether people similar to you were included.
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Why it might seem to do nothing
A real effect and a noticed effect are different things. These are the recorded reasons the two come apart.
It was studied in different people
The people in the studies were not much like the reader.
On this record: Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
The evidence may simply be wrong
Small early studies often do not hold up.
On this record: RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Other reasons RNAWiki checked and found nothing for (11)
It was studied for a different goal
The studies measured something else entirely. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
A different form was studied
The studied form is not the form on the shelf. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
There was nothing to correct
Where a level is already normal, topping it up may change nothing. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else had to happen too
In the studies it was paired with training, a diet or another treatment. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The change is too small to feel
A real change can still sit below what a person notices. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Day-to-day swing hides it
Sleep, food, stress and time of day move most numbers more than this would. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Not enough time yet
The studies ran longer than the person has waited. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
It was not taken as studied
Missed days change the result, and studies count them. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else changed at the same time
Two changes at once cannot be told apart afterwards. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The product may not be what it says
Contents of a sold product are not always what the label states. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
No recorded reason
RNAWiki has nothing stored that would explain it. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
None of these is a reason to take more. Taking more is not a step this page ever suggests.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What taking it involves
The recorded facts about getting hold of it and using it. Nothing here is a suggestion about what you should do.
How it is supplied
Given by a clinician
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
Read from the recorded approval status.
No source is stored against this line.
Form and route
Sterile 1% oil-in-water injectable emulsion for intravenous bolus and infusion, in ampoules, vials and prefilled syringes; delivered by weight-based or target-controlled infusion
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form and route recorded on this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
Who oversees it
Professional supervision is normally required. A regulator classifies this substance in a way that restricts how it is supplied.
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
Suppression classes recorded: S1.
No source is stored against this line.
What is in the pack
The emulsion is the delivery system.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on how this is sold. The rest of the recorded wording: Soybean oil provides the lipid phase, purified egg phosphatide the emulsifier and glycerol the tonicity, and the droplet size distribution has to be tight enough that the suspension can go safely into a vein. Because that vehicle supports rapid bacterial growth, presentations either include a growth retardant such as disodium edetate, sodium metabisulfite or benzyl alcohol, or are strictly single-patient with a short in-use time. The lipid load itself is clinically relevant during long infusions and is one reason propofol is not simply run indefinitely.
No source is stored against this line.
Where it is registered
Regulatory records are listed in the technical disclosure at the foot of this page.
# Counted from records
Where this came from
A count of rows RNAWiki holds. It describes our records, not your body.
Register entries are stored per jurisdiction and shown with their dates.
No source is stored against this line.
Why people stop
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
No record of why people stopped taking it is stored for this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What can go wrong
Sorted by where each line came from. A regulator's label and a report somebody sent in are not the same kind of fact.
·Worth asking a clinician aboutWritten into the record from the studies named on this page
Apnoea after an induction dose is expected rather than adverse, and hypotension from reduced systemic vascular resistance and myocardial depression is the dose-limiting effect in unwell patients. Injection pain is common and is caused by the free phenol in the aqueous phase. Propofol infusion syndrome — metabolic acidosis, rhabdomyolysis, hyperkalaemia, lipaemia, bradyarrhythmia and myocardial failure — is rare, associated with higher infusion rates and longer duration, and has been fatal in both children and adults. Propofol is not indicated for paediatric intensive care sedation. Bacterial contamination of the emulsion has caused outbreaks and is the reason for the handling rules. None of this is dosing guidance and no dosing guidance appears on this page.
Nobody counted how many people took this and were fine, so this cannot be turned into a rate.
NCT02105610 — MYRIAD, volatile anaesthetics versus total intravenous anaesthesia for cardiac surgery (NCT02105610) · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Over a long time. No completed tested study window is recorded, so long-term effects are not established by the registry record.
Groups the studies covered thinly. Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Does the exact form matter?
Evidence belongs to the exact thing that was tested. A different salt, a different mixture or a different preparation is a different question.
The form that was studied
Sterile 1% oil-in-water injectable emulsion for intravenous bolus and infusion, in ampoules, vials and prefilled syringes; delivered by weight-based or target-controlled infusion
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form used in the studies cited on this page.
No source is stored against this line.
What is sold
A recorded note compares this form with the others that are sold. It is kept below, word for word.
§ A fixed RNAWiki sentence
Where this came from
Wording RNAWiki always uses, not a finding about this substance.
The recorded note, unchanged: Soybean oil provides the lipid phase, purified egg phosphatide the emulsifier and glycerol the tonicity, and the droplet size distribution has to be tight enough that the suspension can go safely into a vein. Because that vehicle supports rapid bacterial growth, presentations either include a growth retardant such as disodium edetate, sodium metabisulfite or benzyl alcohol, or are strictly single-patient with a short in-use time. The lipid load itself is clinically relevant during long infusions and is one reason propofol is not simply run indefinitely.
No source is stored against this line.
What is recorded as being sold
49 products list this as an active ingredient in the United States drug directory. 49 of them contain it and nothing else.
FDA National Drug Code directory · 72572-590 · read 2026-08-29
They are sold as injection, emulsion, liquid and powder, taken intravenous.
FDA National Drug Code directory · 72572-590 · read 2026-08-29
The regulator's established pharmacologic class for it is general anesthesia [pe] and general anesthetic [epc].
FDA National Drug Code directory · 72572-590 · read 2026-08-29
20 published labels name it as an active ingredient. 20 of them describe this substance alone, which is where its own label text on this page comes from.
US prescribing information · de351d5f-581d-4768-a4af-fbd8e5bce264 · read 2026-08-29
Those labels are classed as human prescription drug.
US prescribing information · de351d5f-581d-4768-a4af-fbd8e5bce264 · read 2026-08-29
Propofol is intravenous at 3 DOSAGE FORMS AND STRENGTHS Propofol injectable emulsion, USP is available in single-dose vials as follows: 200 mg of propofol per 20 mL of an oil-in-water emulsion (10 mg per mL), 20 mL vial. 500 mg of propofol per 50…, recorded as fda label in effect 2025-04-30 in the United States.
US prescribing information · de351d5f-581d-4768-a4af-fbd8e5bce264 · read 2026-08-30
Recorded price in US: 0.17094 USD per one millilitre, across 4 priced products whose strengths and pack forms differ, as of 2026-08-26, paid by retail pharmacies buying the product, as surveyed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. It is not a list price, an insurance price, or what anyone pays at a counter..
Recorded source · 2026-08-26 · read 2026-08-28
Evidence carries across two names for one substance. It does not carry across a salt, a mirror form or a mixture.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What you could measure
This one is decided with a clinician, so this section holds questions to ask rather than a plan to run.
Self-experiment planning is not offered for a prescription or clinician-supervised medicine. The questions below are for a clinician or pharmacist.
Questions worth asking
Which of the trials of Propofol studied people like me?
What was measured, and for how long?
Was the result a laboratory value or a health outcome?
What would we watch for, and when would we stop?
Tracking can show whether something changed for you. It cannot show what caused it.
RNAWiki records evidence. It does not say whether this substance is right for you.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Claims that go past the evidence
Things said about this substance that sound reasonable, and the exact step that is missing between the evidence and the claim.
✗Goes past the evidence
That the anaesthetic technique chosen for a cardiac operation changes whether the patient is alive a year later — tested in 5,400 patients and stopped for futility
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That avoiding volatile agents and opioids reduces cancer recurrence — tested over eleven years in 2,132 women and stopped for futility
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That egg or soy allergy is a reason to avoid propofol, an inference from the ingredient list that the direct investigation contradicted
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That a modelled effect-site concentration tells you what a measured end-tidal concentration tells you; there is no propofol equivalent of the volatile agent monitor
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That faster, clearer recovery — which is measured and real — implies any advantage in death, complications or long-term outcome
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What nobody knows yet
Open questions, each with why it is open and what would close it.
Missing populations
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing long-term data
No completed tested study window is recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
No reviewed conclusion
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing interaction studies
No interaction was found in the registers checked. Not finding one is not the same as showing there is none.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Formulation uncertainty
Several salts, forms or products of Propofol are recorded. Results from one form may not transfer to another.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Mechanism not reviewed
No reviewed mechanism story exists for this substance.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Check any of this yourself
Every line above traced back to the study it came from. This is the technical layer, and the vocabulary changes here.
Every line above can be traced to the study named beside it. Follow the link and read it.
One changed amino acid abolishes propofol anaesthesia in a living animal
In plain words
Researchers swapped a single amino acid in one subunit of the brain's main inhibitory receptor. Mice carrying the change no longer stopped moving in response to propofol at all, while gas anaesthetics still worked on them.
What was measured
Suppression of noxious-evoked movement and duration of loss of righting reflex in beta3(N265M) knock-in mice versus wild type, with volatile anaesthetic controls
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Jurd and colleagues used gene targeting to generate mice carrying an N265M point mutation in the second transmembrane region of the GABA-A receptor beta3 subunit. In these animals, suppression of noxious-evoked movement by intravenous etomidate and propofol was completely abolished, while it was only slightly decreased for the volatile anaesthetics enflurane and halothane. The mutants also showed a profound reduction in the duration of loss of righting reflex in response to intravenous but not volatile agents. Electrophysiology in cortical brain slices from the mutants showed that the anaesthetics were significantly less effective both at enhancing GABA-A mediated currents and at reducing spontaneous action potential firing. This is as close to a mechanism proof as pharmacology gets: a specific residue, altered in the whole animal, removes the behavioural effect of the drug, and the control drugs in the same animals are unaffected.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
MYRIAD: intravenous anaesthesia did not change one-year death after bypass surgery
In plain words
Inhaled anaesthetics were believed to protect the heart during bypass surgery. Five thousand four hundred patients were randomised to gas or to propofol, and after a year 2.8% and 3.0% had died. The trial was stopped early because it was clear nothing would be found.
What was measured
Death from any cause at one year after elective coronary artery bypass grafting
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
This entry records a failure.
From the source
Landoni and colleagues ran a pragmatic, multicentre, single-blind trial at 36 centres in 13 countries. Patients scheduled for elective coronary artery bypass grafting were randomised to an intraoperative regimen including a volatile agent — desflurane, isoflurane or sevoflurane — or to total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol. On-pump bypass was performed in 64% of patients with a mean bypass duration of 79 minutes. The primary outcome, death from any cause at one year, occurred in 2.8% of the volatile group and 3.0% of the total intravenous anaesthesia group (relative risk 0.94, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.29, P=0.71), with data available for 99.1% of patients. Thirty-day mortality was 1.4% against 1.3%. No secondary outcome differed and no prespecified adverse event, including myocardial infarction, differed. The data and safety monitoring board stopped the trial for futility at the second interim analysis. The result cuts both ways and this page records it that way: it is a failure of the volatile cardioprotection hypothesis and equally a failure of any claim that intravenous anaesthesia is the safer choice.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Propofol plus regional block did not reduce breast cancer recurrence
In plain words
A long-standing theory held that gas anaesthesia and opioids weaken the immune defences that stop cancer spreading, and that propofol with a nerve block would do better. Two thousand one hundred women were randomised over eleven years. Recurrence was 10% in both groups.
What was measured
Local or metastatic breast cancer recurrence, and persistent incisional pain at 6 and 12 months
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
This entry records a failure.
From the source
Sessler and colleagues randomised women under 85 having potentially curative primary breast cancer resection at 13 hospitals in eight countries to regional anaesthesia-analgesia with paravertebral blocks plus propofol, or to general anaesthesia with sevoflurane plus opioid analgesia. Of 2,132 enrolled between January 2007 and January 2018, 24 were excluded before surgery, leaving 1,043 assigned to regional and 1,065 to general anaesthesia; median follow-up was 36 months. Local or metastatic recurrence occurred in 102 (10%) versus 111 (10%) — hazard ratio 0.97, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.28, P=0.84. The trial was stopped after crossing a preplanned futility boundary. The secondary hypothesis also failed: incisional pain at six months was reported by 52% in both groups and at 12 months by 28% and 27%, with an interim-adjusted odds ratio of 1.00 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.17, P=0.99), and neuropathic breast pain did not differ either. This is one of the most expensive negative results in perioperative medicine and it removed a hypothesis that had driven a decade of observational publishing.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Propofol infusion syndrome: five children died before anyone connected the cases
In plain words
Children sedated on a ventilator with propofol began developing an unexplained acid build-up in the blood, a failing heart and fatty serum. Five deaths in three intensive care units were published together in 1992, and the same pattern was later described in adults.
What was measured
Case series of five paediatric deaths; retrospective cohort odds ratio of 1.93 per mg/kg/h above 5 mg/kg/h in 67 ventilated head-injured adults
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
This entry records a failure.
From the source
Parke and colleagues reviewed the case notes of five children aged four weeks to six years with upper respiratory tract infections — four with laryngotracheobronchitis and one with bronchiolitis — all sedated with propofol in three intensive care units. The clinical course was remarkably similar in all five: increasing metabolic acidosis with bradyarrhythmia and progressive myocardial failure unresponsive to resuscitation, and lipaemic serum after starting propofol. Viral myocarditis was excluded. Nine years later Cremer and colleagues reported five adult head-injured patients with inexplicable fatal cardiac arrest after a more concentrated sedation formulation was introduced, and a retrospective cohort of 67 sedated ventilated head-injured adults in which seven were judged to have died from the syndrome; the odds ratio was 1.93 for every mg/kg per hour increase in mean propofol dose above 5 mg/kg per hour (95% CI 1.12 to 3.32, P=0.018). The proposed mechanism is impairment of mitochondrial fatty acid oxidation and the electron transport chain. Propofol is not indicated for intensive care sedation of paediatric patients on the United States label.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The egg and soy allergy rule was never evidence-based, and was tested and dropped
In plain words
Because the emulsion contains egg lecithin and soybean oil, people with egg or soy allergy were routinely given a different anaesthetic. When someone finally looked, there was no link at all.
What was measured
That egg, soy or peanut allergy contraindicates propofol because the emulsion contains egg lecithin and soybean oil — an inference from the ingredient list that direct investigation did not support
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Asserhoj and colleagues ran two studies. In the first, 273 patients systematically investigated for suspected perioperative allergic reactions included 153 who had been exposed to propofol and who underwent skin testing and intravenous provocation; four (2.6%) were diagnosed with propofol allergy, three of them positive only on provocation. None of those four had symptoms on eating egg, soy or peanut, and none had detectable specific IgE to egg or soy. In the second, 520 adults with a positive specific IgE to egg, soy or peanut were investigated retrospectively for propofol exposure, and no sign of an allergic reaction to propofol was found in 171 retrieved anaesthetic charts from 99 exposed patients. The authors concluded that the practice of avoiding propofol in food-allergic patients is not evidence-based and should be reconsidered. The original belief rested on six case reports lacking confirmatory evidence of an allergic reaction, plus the ingredient list.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The brain concentration is never measured; the whole technique runs on a model
In plain words
With a gas anaesthetic, a monitor tells you the concentration the patient is breathing out, which closely tracks what is in the brain. With propofol there is no equivalent measurement, so the dose is guided by a computer model of an average person.
What was measured
That a modelled effect-site concentration is equivalent to a measured one; end-tidal monitoring of a volatile agent has no intravenous counterpart
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Total intravenous anaesthesia is delivered either by weight-based infusion or by target-controlled infusion, in which a pharmacokinetic model calculates the rate needed to reach a chosen plasma or effect-site concentration. No propofol concentration is measured in the patient in real time. Depth-of-anaesthesia monitors derived from the processed electroencephalogram are used as an indirect check, but they are a signal-processing surrogate rather than a concentration measurement, and their relationship to the drug differs between intravenous and volatile anaesthesia. This is not an argument that intravenous anaesthesia is unsafe — MYRIAD found no mortality difference in 5,400 patients — but it is a structural difference in what is known about a given patient at a given moment, and it is the reason awareness under anaesthesia is a live concern specifically for the intravenous technique when a neuromuscular blocking drug is also being used.
Source
FDA-approved US prescribing information for propofol injectable emulsion, Dosage and Administration and Warnings
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
caution
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
How many documents were read
19 documents were read for this substance.
RNAWiki source record
19 of them state the same halfLife, and they agree.
RNAWiki source record
19 of them state the same volumeOfDistribution, and they agree.
RNAWiki source record
Where else this substance is registered
FDA substance identifier (UNII)
YI7VU623SF
RxNorm concept
1808217
Checks this page had to pass
✓ Passed
Identity resolved
no open identity hold
✓ Passed
No unresolved merge across substance families
no quarantine open
✓ Passed
Every public sentence names a source
The opening statement carries the origin: Written into the record, not signed off.
✗ Not passed
Trial roles classified for highlighted evidence
No registered study is classified as testing this substance.
✓ Passed
No internal keys in reader text
enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
✓ Passed
Safety mode resolved
Suppression classes recorded: S1.
✓ Passed
Canonical metadata present
slug and display name present
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
How this medicine reached us
Kept near the foot of the page. A historical event moves up only when it changes something about this substance today.
Withdrawn in United States, 2022, for "Presence of particulate matter: particulate identified as a beetle." (openFDA drug enforcement Class I recall)
Withdrawn in United States, 2014, for "Presence of Particulate Matter: A glass defect was found on the interior neck of the vial during a retain sample inspection where the glass vial contained visible embedded metallic particulate and…" (openFDA drug enforcement Class I recall)
Withdrawn in United States, 2014, for "Temperature Abuse: Products experienced uncontrolled temperature excursions during transit." (openFDA drug enforcement Class I recall)
Withdrawn in United States, 2022, for "Presence of particulate matter" (openFDA drug enforcement Class I recall)
What the approval register records
16 approved applications cover products containing this substance. The earliest was NDA019627, approved 19891002 to FRESENIUS KABI USA.
This order is fixed in code and does not count clicks or time on the page.
What is not here
7 questions this page could not answer
These sections were prepared and left out because there was nothing to put in them. They are listed rather than hidden, so the gaps in this record are visible.
What was measured, goal by goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
How close this is to real life — found nothing in the sources checked.
Felt, measured, or meaningful — found nothing in the sources checked.
How long anything takes — found nothing in the sources checked.
What it may clash with — found nothing in the sources checked.
Other ways to the same goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
What changed on this page — found nothing in the sources checked.
The record as stored
The full record, for auditing
Everything above is built from what is below. This layer keeps the technical vocabulary, record identifiers and every stored row, so a reader who wants to check the page can.
The older medicine-wide conclusion held in this record
Written for a clinical reader, and about the medicine as a whole rather than about one indication, population and set of trials. RNAWiki does not treat it as a programme conclusion and no reviewer has signed it off in that form. It is here word for word because it is what the record holds.
A phenol that opens the GABA-A chloride channel and switches consciousness off within seconds — proved to act there by a single-residue knock-in mutation that abolishes its effect in mice — and which, in 5,400 patients having coronary bypass surgery, produced 1-year mortality of 3.0% against 2.8% for inhaled anaesthesia, a trial stopped early for futility.
Recorded evidence blocks (10)
Q2
On the Propofol label: indicated for what?
"Propofol injectable emulsion is an intravenous general anesthetic and sedation drug indicated for: • Induction of General Anesthesia for Patients Greater than or Equal to 3 Years of Age • Maintenance of General Anesthesia for Patients Greater than or Equal to 2 Months of Age • Initiation and Maintenance of Monitored…": indications and usage on Propofol's label. DailyMed label · 28d7ba00-f824-4e55-139a-03f509c099db · 2026-08-13
Q3
1043 registered trials of Propofol — at which phases?
Registered studies posting no result
909 of 1043
1043 registered studies of Propofol: 394 na, 360 phase4, 96 phase3, 78 na or unstated, 76 phase2, 49 phase1, 17 early phase1. CLINICALTRIALS_SNAPSHOT · 2026-09-01
1 day; The terminal half-life of propofol after a 10-day infusion is 1 day to 3 days.
recorded 2026-08-13 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q7
Which running trial of Propofol could settle inflammatory markers?
NCT06990763 measures Levels of serum N/OFQ, IL-6, STAT3, reading out 2026-01-01.
10 open trials; n 40; "Network Pharmacology Was Applied to Explore the Mechanism of Remimazolam Applied in General Anesthesia for Gynecological Surgeries"
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT06990763
"Network Pharmacology Was Applied to Explore the Mechanism of Remimazolam Applied in General Anesthesia for Gynecological Surgeries"; n 40; "Levels of serum N/OFQ, IL-6, STAT3"; 2026-01-01
NCT07571473
"CoreSys Monitoring for Intraoperative Stress Management in Abdominal Hysterectomy"; n 30; "Change in interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels"; 2026-05-30
NCT07271459
"Effect of Total Intravenous Anesthesia vs Inhalational Anesthesia on the Level of Inflammatory Markers"; n 40; "IL-6 level 24 hours postoperatively compared to baseline value"; 2026-10
NCT05663242
"The Effects of Using Different Anesthetics on the Prognosis of Primary Lung Tumors and Its Mechanism of Action"; n 300; "Overall survival"; 2026-11-30
NCT05331911
"Impact of Propofol-Based Total Intravenous Anesthesia Versus Anesthesia With Sevoflurane on Long-term Outcomes With Patients Undergoing Elective Excision of Primary Liver Tumors"; n 500; "Overall survival"; 2027-03-31
NCT03643367
"Sevoflurane Sedation in Patients With Septic Shock"; n 153; "Concentration of interleukin-6 over time"; 2027-11
4 further recorded trials
NCT04513808
"Total Intravenous Anesthesia and Recurrence Free Survival"; n 1614; "Recurrence-free survival"; 2027-12
NCT07787364
"Intraoperative Targeted Versus Liberal Blood Pressure Management in Patients Undergoing Off-pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting"; n 416; "Incidence of the 30-Day Composite of Postoperative Complications or All-Cause Mortality"; 2028-03-31
NCT04259398
"Anesthesia and Cancer Study: Colon Cancer"; n 797; "five year survival"; 2028-05-03
NCT06330038
"Anesthesia and Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Recurrence"; n 5384; "Recurrence free survival"; 2028-12-31
Q8
Which 454 trials of Propofol posted no result?
Posted no result
454 of 454 completed trials
Registrations
NCT00004424, NCT04226625, NCT00209521, NCT00988520, NCT00290108 and NCT00984633, and 448 more
Completion dates
oldest 2000-03; newest 2024-08-29
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT00004424
2000-03
NCT04226625
2002-03-21
NCT00209521
2003-07
NCT00988520
2003-09
NCT00290108
2003-12
NCT00984633
2003-12
14 further recorded trials
NCT00417664
2004-04
NCT00287560
2005-02
NCT01115179
2005-12
NCT00219856
2006-03
NCT00848861
2006-06
NCT00318955
2006-08
NCT01947114
2006-08
NCT00321360
2006-09
NCT00477737
2006-12
NCT00534586
2007-05
NCT00270335
2007-08
NCT00506246
2007-10
NCT00228267
2007-11
NCT00390871
2007-12
Q9
At the median, Propofol's trials enrolled 82.5 people — anything larger?
Median enrolment
82.5
Largest enrolment
27034
Registered trials counted
1042
Q10
What do 4483 spontaneous reports say about Propofol — and not say?
These are reports people sent to a regulator. They do not show the medicine caused the reaction. Nobody counted how many people took the medicine and reported nothing. The same event can be reported more than once, and many reports are incomplete. News coverage, lawsuits and new warnings change how often people report. A count is not a rate and not a risk.
Propofol appears in spontaneous reports to regulators. Across the 10 most-reported reaction terms, 4483 reaction mentions were counted: hypotension 957; anaphylactic shock 847; anaphylactic reaction 486; tachycardia 349. FAERS via Open Targets · CHEMBL526 · 2026-06-24
Show the evidence
hypotension
957
anaphylactic shock
847
anaphylactic reaction
486
tachycardia
349
bradycardia
337
cardiac arrest
335
4 more recorded rows
bronchospasm
324
rhabdomyolysis
316
oxygen saturation decreased
293
propofol infusion syndrome
239
recorded 2026-06-24 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q11
Which 10 reactions does Propofol's label not list?
2 label terms; 10 reported and unlisted; 28d7ba00-f824-4e55-139a-03f509c099db
Show the evidence
anaphylactic reaction
count not stated
anaphylactic shock
count not stated
bradycardia
count not stated
bronchospasm
count not stated
cardiac arrest
count not stated
hypotension
count not stated
4 more recorded rows
oxygen saturation decreased
count not stated
propofol infusion syndrome
count not stated
rhabdomyolysis
count not stated
tachycardia
count not stated
recorded 2026-06-24 · last checked 2026-09-04
Where it is registered
Where it’s registered
Withdrawn in United States, 2022, for "Presence of particulate matter: particulate identified as a beetle." (openFDA drug enforcement Class I recall)
Withdrawn in United States, 2014, for "Presence of Particulate Matter: A glass defect was found on the interior neck of the vial during a retain sample inspection where the glass vial contained visible embedded metallic particulate and…" (openFDA drug enforcement Class I recall)
Withdrawn in United States, 2014, for "Temperature Abuse: Products experienced uncontrolled temperature excursions during transit." (openFDA drug enforcement Class I recall)
Withdrawn in United States, 2022, for "Presence of particulate matter" (openFDA drug enforcement Class I recall)
ChEMBL 37 — CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported · ChEMBL ATC CC BY-SA · ClinicalTrials.gov — US Government work · Open Targets 26.06 — CC0 · mixed register set; per-register licences in docs/specs/corpus-20k-sources.md · openFDA / DailyMed — US Government work · openFDA enforcement — US Government work
✗ required summary fields resolved: 4 required field(s) not terminal: Why people use it, Best-supported result, Biggest unanswered question, Human evidence
✓ public claims reviewed: 0 reviewed claim(s); drafts are never rendered
✓ source coverage passed: 7 source rows
✓ no critical contamination: no quarantine open
✓ canonical metadata passed: slug and display name present
✓ no raw internal fields: enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
This is a record of evidence. It is not medical advice, and it does not say this substance suits you. Nothing here says any substance on RNAWiki is appropriate for a child.