ReviewJournal of anesthesia2013
Developmental anesthetic neurotoxicity: from animals to humans?
Review in Journal of anesthesia, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anesthetic neurotoxicity in the developing brain: an update on theinsights and implications for fetal surgery.Anesthesia and pain medicine · 2024Article
- Children are not little adults: a special issue on pediatric anesthesia.Anesthesia and pain medicine · 2024Article
- High-Dose Remifentanil Anesthesia With Minimal Sedation in Neonates: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.Cureus · 2024Article
- Article
- Combining isoflurane anesthesia with midazolam and butorphanol in rats.Experimental animals · 2016Article
- Is propofol more neurotoxic in the developing brain?Journal of anesthesia · 2015Article
- The cutting edge of neonatal anesthesia: the tide of history is changing.Journal of anesthesia · 2015Article
- Effect of midazolam and butorphanol premedication on inhalant isoflurane anesthesia in mice.Experimental animals · 2015Article
- Vital signs monitoring during injectable and inhalant anesthesia in mice.Experimental animals · 2015Article
- Utilizing Focus Groups with Potential Participants and Their Parents: An Approach to Inform Study Design in a Large Clinical Trial.AJOB empirical bioethics · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several animal studies have demonstrated that most routinely used general anesthetics induce widespread neuroapoptosis and long-term neurocognitive impairment in the immature brain. These findings have generated great interest among pediatric anesthesiologists and other practitioners regarding the safe use of general anesthetics in pediatric patients. Several human retrospective studies failed to confirm whether or not anesthesia exposure during the crucial phase of brain development induces long-term neurocognitive deficits in humans. Since the clinical relevance of the results of general anesthesia in animal experiments is unknown, it is unreasonable to directly utilize the results derived from animals and retrospective human surveys to guide clinical practice at the present time. Clearly, additional prospective randomized controlled trials are needed in humans to determine the effects of general anesthesia on neurodevelopment. In this review, we summarize currently available laboratory and clinical evidence for anesthetic neurotoxicity. Furthermore, we discuss the implications of these results for clinical anesthesia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.