Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34245405›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2022

Processed electroencephalography: impact of patient age and surgical position on intraoperative processed electroencephalogram monitoring of burst-suppression.

D Pleasants, R Zak, L H Ashbrook, L Zhang, C Tang, D Tran, M Wang, S Tabatabai, J M Leung

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
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

9 authors.

D PleasantsDepartment of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3856-5915
R ZakDepartment of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8176-8622
L H AshbrookDepartment of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2437-8203
L ZhangDepartment of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9242-0763
C TangDepartment of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
D TranDepartment of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7743-4534
M WangDepartment of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
S TabatabaiDepartment of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9270-9601
J M LeungDepartment of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. jacqueline.leung@ucsf.edu.

Funding

The role of genomics in postoperative delirium and sedationR01NR017622 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI LEUNG, JACQUELINE M · 2019 to 2021
$2.6M
Pathophysiology of postoperative delirium in older patientsR01AG031795 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI LEUNG, JACQUELINE M · 2009 to 2013
$2.1M
The Effects of Light vs Deep Anesthesia on Postoperative Cognitive OutcomesR21AG048456 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI LEUNG, JACQUELINE M · 2015 to 2016
$444k
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG031795NIA NIH HHS R21 AG048456NINR NIH HHS R01 NR017622
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We previously reported that processed EEG underestimated the amount of burst suppression compared to off-line visual analysis. We performed a follow-up study to evaluate the reasons for the discordance. Forty-five patients were monitored intraoperatively with processed EEG. A computer algorithm was used to convert the SedLine® (machine)-generated burst suppression ratio into a raw duration of burst suppression. The reference standard was a precise off-line measurement by two neurologists. We measured other potential variables that may affect machine accuracy such as age, surgery position, and EEG artifacts. Overall, the median duration of bust suppression for all study subjects was 15.4 min (Inter-quartile Range [IQR] = 1.0-20.1) for the machine vs. 16.1 min (IQR = 0.3-19.7) for the neurologists' assessment; the 95% limits of agreement fall within - 4.86 to 5.04 s for individual 30-s epochs. EEG artifacts did not affect the concordance between the two methods. For patients in prone surgical position, the machine estimates had significantly lower overall sensitivity (0.86 vs. 0.97; p = 0.038) and significantly wider limits of agreement ([- 4.24, 3.82] seconds vs. [- 1.36, 1.13] seconds, p = 0.001) than patients in supine position. Machine readings for younger patients (age < 65 years) had higher sensitivity (0.96 vs 0.92; p = 0.021) and specificity (0.99 vs 0.88; p = 0.007) for older patients. The duration of burst suppression estimated by the machine generally had good agreement compared with neurologists' estimation using a more precise off-line measurement. Factors that affected the concordance included patient age and position during surgery, but not EEG artifacts.

Indexed as

ElectroencephalographyMonitoring, IntraoperativeAgedAlgorithmsFollow-Up StudiesHumansAnesthesiaBurst suppressionElectroencephalogramIntraoperative neuromonitoringProcessed EEGSurgical position

Identifiers

PMID34245405
PMCPMC11046414

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.