↓ Skip to main content

Amnesia of the Operating Room in the B-Unaware and BAG-RECALL Clinical Trials

Overview of attention for article published in Anesthesia and analgesia, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Amnesia of the Operating Room in the B-Unaware and BAG-RECALL Clinical Trials
Published in
Anesthesia and analgesia, April 2016
DOI 10.1213/ane.0000000000001175
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Patient memories of the operating room (OR) may serve as the informational basis for assessing satisfaction with individual anesthesiologists. Furthermore, the provision of clinically important information may assume that perioperative memories are retained. Studies assessing the extent of perioperative amnesia and factors associated with perioperative amnesia are sparse. Therefore, we assessed patient amnesia of the OR and of the preoperative holding area in hospitals where midazolam is typically administered in the preoperative holding area and evaluated whether midazolam dose administered in the preoperative holding area and patient age were associated with amnesia of the OR before induction of anesthesia. This was a retrospective study among 7750 adult patients who had general anesthesia and participated in the B-Unaware and Bispectral Index or Anesthetic Gas to Reduce Explicit Recall (BAG-RECALL) clinical trials. The last location the patient remembered before induction of anesthesia and the first location they remembered after induction of anesthesia were determined through a modified Brice questionnaire administered over the phone 30 days postoperatively. Regarding the preoperative period, patients were excluded if their last memory was unclear with respect to location before induction of anesthesia or if they were recruited at Winnipeg, where midazolam was typically first administered in the OR. Midazolam dose (mg/kg) administered in the preoperative holding area was divided into quartiles. Poisson regression models were used to calculate age- and multivariable-adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) for the association between midazolam dose and amnesia of the OR before induction of anesthesia. Of the 5339 patients included, 59.5% (95% CI, 58.2-60.9) of patients had amnesia of the OR before induction of anesthesia. In addition, 44.1% (95% CI, 42.8-45.7) last remembered the preoperative holding area, and 15.4% (95% CI, 14.4-16.4) only had preoperative memories before the holding area. The percentages of patients with amnesia of the OR before induction of anesthesia differed according to age groups: 50.7% (95% CI, 47.7%-53.7%) in patients aged 18 to 47 years versus 70.0% (95% CI, 67.0%-72.9%) in patients aged 73 to 99 years. Patients in the highest midazolam quartile had an adjusted prevalence ratio of 1.31 (95% CI, 1.22-1.42) for amnesia of the OR compared with those who did not receive midazolam. In hospitals where patients typically receive midazolam in the preoperative holding area, the majority of patients do not remember the OR, and a clinically relevant number of patients does not remember the preoperative holding area. If additional studies produce results indicating that a substantial proportion of patients has amnesia of the anesthesiologist, these findings would argue against the validity of assessing patient satisfaction with individual anesthesiologists providing exclusively OR care in such hospitals. Furthermore, if additional studies yield findings suggesting patient amnesia of the preoperative holding area, these results would suggest reconsideration of providing clinically important information only in the preoperative holding area. Older age and midazolam-induced anterograde amnesia are probably associated with impaired perioperative memories.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Czechia 1 2%
Unknown 55 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 13%
Student > Postgraduate 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Other 15 27%
Unknown 14 25%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Neuroscience 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 15 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 March 2016.
All research outputs
#28,639,288
of 34,410,315 outputs
Outputs from Anesthesia and analgesia
#9,721
of 10,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#263,968
of 338,539 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anesthesia and analgesia
#81
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,410,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,901 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 338,539 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.