ReviewBritish journal of anaesthesia2018
Complexities of human memory: relevance to anaesthetic practice.
Review in British journal of anaesthesia, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Mechanisms of anaesthetic actions on memory have largely focused on easily definable aspects of episodic memory, with emphasis on particular drug interactions on specific memory processes. However, the memory landscape of the perioperative experience includes many facets that lie outside these conceptualisations. These include patient recall of preoperative conversations, patient beliefs regarding allergies and unusual/uncommon anaesthetic events, memories of awareness, and particularly vivid dreams during anaesthesia. In no small part, memories are influenced by a patient's interpretations of events in light of their own belief systems. From the practitioner's point of view, relating fully to the patient's experience requires some framework of understanding. The purpose of this review is to highlight research over the previous decades on belief systems and their interactions with autobiographical memory, which organises episodic memories into a personally relevant narrative. As a result, memory is a set of continuously malleable processes, and is best described as a (re)constructive rather than photographic instantiation. Belief systems are separate but closely interacting processes with autobiographical memory. The interaction of a constantly evolving set of memories with belief systems can explain phenomena such as illusions, distortions, and (re)constructions of factitious events. How anaesthetics and our patient interactions influence these behaviours, and vice versa, will be important questions to explore and define with future research.
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.