ReviewBJA open2026
Sources, impacts, and mechanisms of non-pharmacological artifacts in processed electroencephalography monitoring during anaesthesia and intensive care: A scoping review.
Review in BJA open, 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
Background: Processed EEG (pEEG) monitoring is widely used to assess depth of hypnosis during anaesthesia and sedation in intensive care. However, these systems are susceptible to non-brain-related artifacts. Although previous reviews have identified sources of artifacts, their specific effects on electroencephalographic signals and derived hypnotic indices have not been systematically synthesised. This scoping review aims to summarise non-pharmacological artifact sources affecting pEEG monitoring in perioperative and ICU settings, including their impact on hypnotic indices and underlying mechanisms. Methods: A three-step search strategy was followed for this scoping review as detailed in a previously published protocol. Studies involving non-pharmacological, non-brain-related artifacts in human patients undergoing pEEG monitoring during anaesthesia or critical care were included. Databases searched were PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Web of Science, alongside grey literature. Searches were conducted on 19 June and 11 November 2025. English-language articles or those with English translations were included. Screening and data extraction were performed using Covidence. Results: Of 152 screened articles, 48 met inclusion criteria (31 case reports, 7 case series, 10 studies). pEEG Monitors included BIS (36 articles), Entropy (10), and SedLine (six). Thirty-one artifact types were identified: 13 were patient-derived and 18 were non-patient-derived. The most common artifacts were related to cardiac or neuromuscular activity. Thrity-seven articles reported artifacts falsely elevating hypnotic indices; 2 resulted in no change, and 2reported a decrease. Conclusions: Processed EEG Hypnotic indices are vulnerable to a broad range of non-pharmacological artifacts from both patient and environmental sources. This review categorises these artifacts and summarises their effects and mechanisms, highlighting important limitations in interpreting pEEG data clinically.
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.