Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36952576›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

How is depth of anaesthesia assessed in experimental pigs? A scoping review.

Alessandro Mirra, Ekaterina Gamez Maidanskaia, Luís Pedro Carmo, Olivier Levionnois, Claudia Spadavecchia

Open access · goldFull text readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Pig Sedation and Anesthesia for Medical Research.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Review
  10. SedlineAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    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

5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Alessandro MirraAnaesthesiology and Pain Therapy Section, Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-5036-7500
Ekaterina Gamez MaidanskaiaAnaesthesiology and Pain Therapy Section, Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Luís Pedro CarmoDepartment of Clinical Research und Public Health (DCR-VPH), Vetsuisse Faculty, Veterinary Public Health Institute, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-7367-5178
Olivier LevionnoisAnaesthesiology and Pain Therapy Section, Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Claudia SpadavecchiaAnaesthesiology and Pain Therapy Section, Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
University of Bern · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the large number of pigs involved in translational studies, no gold standard depth of anaesthesia indicators are available. We undertook a scoping review to investigate and summarize the evidence that sustains or contradicts the use of depth of anaesthesia indicators in this species.

methodsMedline, Embase and CAB abstract were searched up to September 22nd 2022. No limits were set for time, language and study type. Only original articles of in vivo studies using pigs or minipigs undergoing general anaesthesia were included. The depth of anaesthesia indicators reported in the selected papers were divided in two categories: A, indicators purposely investigated as method to assess depth of anaesthesia; B, indicators reported but not investigated as method to assess depth of anaesthesia.

resultsOut of 13792 papers found, 105 were included after the screening process. Category A: 17 depth of anaesthesia indicators were found in 19 papers. Studies were conducted using inhalant anaesthetics as the main anaesthetic agent in the majority of the cases (13/19 = 68.4%), while 3/19 (15.8%) used propofol. The most investigated depth of anaesthesia indicators were bispectral index (8/19 = 42.1%) and spectral edge frequency 95% (5/19 = 26.3%). Contrasting results about the specific usefulness of each depth of anaesthesia indicators were reported. Category B: 23 depth of anaesthesia indicators were found in 92 papers. The most reported depth of anaesthesia indicators were: motor response following a stimulus (37/92 = 40.2%), depth of anaesthesia scores (21/92 = 23.3%), bispectral index (16/92 = 17.8%) and spectral edge frequency 95% (9/92 = 9.8%).

conclusionResults highlight the lack of scientifically valid and reliable indicators to ensure adequate depth of anaesthesia in pigs.

Indexed as

AnesthesiologyAnestheticsPropofolAnesthesia, GeneralAnimalsElectroencephalographySwineSwine, MiniatureAnestheticsPropofol

Identifiers

PMID36952576
PMCPMC10035875
OpenAlexW4360608926

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read58
identifiers read6
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.