ArticleBritish journal of anaesthesia2026
Dreaming during anaesthesia: a scoping review.
Article in British journal of anaesthesia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDreaming during anaesthesia has been documented for over a century, yet it remains poorly understood. This scoping review synthesises evidence on the frequency, phenomenology, predictors, outcomes, and neural correlates of anaesthesia dreaming.
methodsWe systematically searched multiple databases for studies examining anaesthesia dreaming, including clinical trials, observational studies, and experimental investigations in adult and paediatric patients, as well as in healthy volunteers.
resultsWe identified 157 studies (1921-2024) involving 87 866 participants. Dream recall varied widely, with higher rates in experimental settings (often 40%-80%) compared with large-scale clinical trials (typically 3%-8%), likely reflecting methodological differences. Ketamine (clinical: 0%-95%; experimental: 44%-100%) and propofol (clinical: 0%-64%; experimental: 0%-77%) were most consistently associated with recall. Dreams were predominantly pleasant, featuring everyday autobiographical content. Higher home dream recall frequency, preoperative suggestion or priming, and immediate post-emergence assessment were associated with higher recall. Evidence regarding clinical outcomes was limited, but unpleasant dreams were linked to lower willingness to undergo the same anaesthetic again. Dream recall was not associated with intraoperative awareness, challenging interpretations of dreams as markers of inadequate anaesthetic depth. Emerging neural evidence suggests that dreaming exhibits signatures distinct from unconsciousness and connected consciousness.
conclusionsAnaesthesia dreaming is common, predominantly positive, and pharmacologically specific. Major gaps in knowledge include inconsistent definitions, inadequate assessment methods, limited mechanistic understanding, sparse paediatric research, and minimal outcome data. Standardised approaches informed by consciousness science and sleep research are needed. The positive nature and suggestibility of anaesthesia dreams suggest potential therapeutic applications warranting investigation.
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.