Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33469352›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of general medicine2021

Reducing Perioperative Neurocognitive Disorders (PND) Through Depth of Anesthesia Monitoring: A Critical Review.

Lisbeth A Evered, Peter A Goldstein

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of general medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Lisbeth A EveredDepartment of Anesthesiology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Peter A GoldsteinDepartment of Anesthesiology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

General anesthesia has been administered for over 150 years, and in that time, has become progressively safer. Improvements in outcomes have been driven by multiple advances, including the use of non-invasive monitors to assess cardiovascular and respiratory status. More recent advances have included the development and use of monitors to measure neurologic status by means of "processed" electroencephalography (pEEG), wherein the frontal EEG signal is analyzed by proprietary algorithms to produce a dimensionless number (scaled from 0 to 100), wherein low values are associated with deepening levels of sedation that progresses to loss of consciousness. Such monitors have been shown to enable anesthetic titration so as to expedite emergence and early recovery, and their use is advocated for the prevention of intraoperative awareness in the setting of administration of total intravenous anesthesia and neuromuscular blockade. Whether their use can minimize, or prevent, longer term adverse events is a matter of debate. In this narrative review of the most recent literature, we provide an assessment on the use of pEEG monitors in the prevention of a notable, and important, postoperative adverse outcome - delirium - in elderly patients. As we will discuss, the existing data do not support its routine use for the prevention of postoperative delirium in this, or any other, patient population.

Indexed as

deliriumEEGelectroencephalographyoutcomepostoperative

Identifiers

PMID33469352
PMCPMC7813450

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.