ArticleBJA open2023
EEG responses to standardised noxious stimulation during clinical anaesthesia: a pilot study.
Article in BJA open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Qnox index for quantification of intraoperative nociception and analgesia: a prospective single-centre validation study.British journal of anaesthesia · 2025Trial
- A Multimodal Deep Learning Approach to Intraoperative Nociception Monitoring: Integrating Electroencephalogram, Photoplethysmography, and Electrocardiogram.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A novel electroencephalographic evaluation of noxious stimulation during isoflurane anesthesia in dogs.Experimental animals · 2025Article
- Substance specific EEG patterns in mice undergoing slow anesthesia induction.BMC anesthesiology · 2024Article
- Nociception in Chicken Embryos, Part II: Embryonal Development of Electroencephalic Neuronal ActivityAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: During clinical anaesthesia, the administration of analgesics mostly relies on empirical knowledge and observation of the patient's reactions to noxious stimuli. Previous studies in healthy volunteers under controlled conditions revealed EEG activity in response to standardised nociceptive stimuli even at high doses of remifentanil and propofol. This pilot study aims to investigate the feasibility of using these standardised nociceptive stimuli in routine clinical practice. Methods: We studied 17 patients undergoing orthopaedic trauma surgery under general anaesthesia. We evaluated if the EEG could track standardised noxious phase-locked electrical stimulation and tetanic stimulation, a time-locked surrogate for incisional pain, before, during, and after the induction of general anaesthesia. Subsequently, we analysed the effect of tetanic stimulation on the surgical pleth index as a peripheral, vegetative, nociceptive marker. Results: We found that the phase-locked evoked potentials after noxious electrical stimulation vanished after the administration of propofol, but not at low concentrations of remifentanil. After noxious tetanic stimulation under general anaesthesia, there were no consistent spectral changes in the EEG, but the vegetative response in the surgical pleth index was statistically significant (Hedges' Conclusion: Our standardised nociceptive stimuli are not optimised for obtaining consistent EEG responses in patients during clinical anaesthesia. To validate and sufficiently reproduce EEG-based standardised stimulation as a marker for nociception in clinical anaesthesia, other pain models or stimulation settings might be required to transfer preclinical studies into clinical practice. Clinical trial registration: DRKS00017829.
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.