ArticleNursing open2026
Opinions and Use of Depth of Anaesthesia Assessment Methods: A Cross-Sectional Survey.
Article in Nursing 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo capture nurse anaesthetists' opinions on the use of depth of anaesthesia assessment methods and describe when and how nurse anaesthetists find such technical devices useful in their clinical practice.
designCross-sectional.
methodsExploratory web-based survey among (n = 79) nurse anaesthetists who were members of the Swedish National Association for Anaesthesia and Intensive Care.
resultsIn total, 25 nurse anaesthetists estimated that they used anaesthesia depth monitoring in up to every fourth case, whereas 20 reported applying monitoring in up to every second patient. Situations in which nurse anaesthetists would use depth of anaesthesia monitoring were during total intravenous anaesthesia, and in previous instances of awareness. There was a divergence of opinion among the nurse anaesthetists regarding whether judgement of clinical signs was equivalent or superior to the use of anaesthesia depth monitoring.
conclusionBased on the survey results, there are indications that knowledge regarding depth of anaesthesia assessment methods needs to be enhanced. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION: Anaesthesia depth monitoring is regarded as important in specific clinical situations, rather than as a routine component of all general anaesthesia. Variations in nurse anaesthetists' opinions on the value of clinical signs compared with technological monitoring indicate that these approaches may be best understood as complementary rather than mutually exclusive methods of assessing anaesthetic depth. Furthermore, the findings highlight the need for ongoing professional education and discussion regarding the appropriate indications, interpretation, and application of anaesthesia depth monitoring in nurse anaesthesia practice. IMPACT: The findings suggest that anaesthesia depth monitoring is not routinely used by responding nurse anaesthetists. The results further indicate that nurse anaesthetists' opinion and experiences toward this technology vary, highlighting the importance of considering these factors when developing structured guidelines for clinical practice. REPORTING
methodStrobe guidelines were followed. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.
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.