SynthesisFrontiers in neuroscience2025
Effects of neostigmine on postoperative neurocognitive dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2025. 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.
- Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Postoperative neurocognitive dysfunction (PND) is a common and serious complication following surgery. Neostigmine, an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor commonly administered during anesthesia to reverse residual neuromuscular blockade, has been suggested in recent studies to potentially reduce the incidence of PND. However, findings have been inconsistent across studies. Therefore, this study conducts a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of neostigmine on PND. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search across multiple databases, including PubMed, EmBase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, SinoMed, and CNKI, to identify all relevant studies for inclusion. We included randomized controlled trials and cohort studies in our analysis. The risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 tool for randomized trials and the ROBINS-I tool for cohort studies. Results: A total of 11 studies were included in this analysis, consisting of 8 randomized controlled trials and 3 cohort studies. The incidence of PND was significantly lower in the neostigmine group compared to the control group (log(OR): -0.54, 95% CI [-1.04, -0. 05]; OR: 0.58, 95% CI: [0.35, 0.95], Conclusion: Neostigmine may have a potential positive effect in reducing the incidence of PND. However, no statistical difference was observed when meta-analyses were performed separately for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. Given the limited number of studies available and the limitations of the current research, further investigation is needed to clarify the impact of neostigmine on PND. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024537647, Identifier CRD42024537647.
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.