↓ Skip to main content

Anaesthetic interventions for prevention of awareness during surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
182 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.
Title
Anaesthetic interventions for prevention of awareness during surgery
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007272.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anthony G Messina, Michael Wang, Marshall J Ward, Chase C Wilker, Brett B Smith, Daniel P Vezina, Nathan Leon Pace

Abstract

General anaesthesia is usually associated with unconsciousness. 'Awareness' is when patients have postoperative recall of events or experiences during surgery. 'Wakefulness' is when patients become conscious during surgery, but have no postoperative recollection of the period of consciousness. To evaluate the efficacy of two types of anaesthetic interventions in reducing clinically significant awareness:- anaesthetic drug regimens; and- intraoperative anaesthetic depth monitors. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, ISSUE 4 2016); PubMed from 1950 to April 2016; MEDLINE from 1950 to April 2016; and Embase from 1980 to April 2016. We contacted experts to identify additional studies. We performed a handsearch of the citations in the review. We did not search trial registries. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of either anaesthetic regimens or anaesthetic depth monitors. We excluded volunteer studies, studies of patients prior to skin incision, intensive care unit studies, and studies that only randomized different word presentations for memory tests (not anaesthetic interventions).Anaesthetic drug regimens included studies of induction or maintenance, or both. Anaesthetic depth monitors included the Bispectral Index monitor, M-Entropy, Narcotrend monitor, cerebral function monitor, cerebral state monitor, patient state index, and lower oesophageal contractility monitor. The use of anaesthetic depth monitors allows the titration of anaesthetic drugs to maintain unconsciousness. At least two authors independently scanned abstracts, extracted data from the studies, and evaluated studies for risk of bias. We made attempts to contact all authors for additional clarification. We performed meta-analysis statistics in packages of the R language. We included 160 studies with 54,109 enrolled participants; 53,713 participants started the studies and 50,034 completed the studies or data analysis (or both). We could not use 115 RCTs in meta-analytic comparisons because they had zero awareness events. We did not merge 27 of the remaining 45 studies because they had excessive clinical and methodological heterogeneity. We pooled the remaining 18 eligible RCTs in meta-analysis. There are 10 studies awaiting classification which we will process when we update the review.The meta-analyses included 18 trials with 36,034 participants. In the analysis of anaesthetic depth monitoring (either Bispectral Index or M-entropy) versus standard clinical and electronic monitoring, there were nine trials with 34,744 participants. The overall event rate was 0.5%. The effect favoured neither anaesthetic depth monitoring nor standard clinical and electronic monitoring, with little precision in the odds ratio (OR) estimate (OR 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.62).In a five-study subset of Bispectral Index monitoring versus standard clinical and electronic monitoring, with 34,181 participants, 503 participants gave awareness reports to a blinded, expert panel who adjudicated or judged the outcome for each patient after reviewing the questionnaires: no awareness, possible awareness, or definite awareness. Experts judged 351 patient awareness reports to have no awareness, 87 to have possible awareness, and 65 to have definite awareness. The effect size favoured neither Bispectral Index monitoring nor standard clinical and electronic monitoring, with little precision in the OR estimate for the combination of definite and possible awareness (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.65). The effect size favoured Bispectral Index monitoring for definite awareness, but with little precision in the OR estimate (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.75).We performed three smaller meta-analyses of anaesthetic drugs. There were nine studies with 1290 participants. Wakefulness was reduced by ketamine and etomidate compared to thiopental. Wakefulness was more frequent than awareness. Benzodiazepines reduces awareness compared to thiopental, ketamine, and placebo., Also, higher doses of inhaled anaesthetics versus lower doses reduced the risk of awareness.We graded the quality of the evidence as low or very low in the 'Summary of findings' tables for the five comparisons.Most of the secondary outcomes in this review were not reported in the included RCTs. Anaesthetic depth monitors may have similar effects to standard clinical and electrical monitoring on the risk of awareness during surgery. In older studies comparing anaesthetics in a smaller portion of the patient sample, wakefulness occurred more frequently than awareness. Use of etomidate and ketamine lowered the risk of wakefulness compared to thiopental. Benzodiazepines compared to thiopental and ketamine, or higher doses of inhaled anaesthetics versus lower doses, reduced the risk of awareness.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 182 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Unknown 176 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 29 16%
Student > Bachelor 29 16%
Student > Master 28 15%
Researcher 22 12%
Other 19 10%
Other 55 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 87 48%
Unspecified 32 18%
Psychology 17 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 8%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Other 26 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 13 July 2019.
All research outputs
#1,100,289
of 13,612,359 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,313
of 10,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,326
of 289,407 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#62
of 167 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,612,359 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,678 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
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 289,407 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 167 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.