↓ Skip to main content

Cerebral near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) for perioperative monitoring of brain oxygenation in children and adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 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
Cerebral near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) for perioperative monitoring of brain oxygenation in children and adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010947.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yun Yu, Kaiying Zhang, Ling Zhang, Huantao Zong, Lingzhong Meng, Ruquan Han

Abstract

Various techniques have been employed for the early detection of perioperative cerebral ischaemia and hypoxia. Cerebral near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) is increasingly used in this clinical scenario to monitor brain oxygenation. However, it is unknown whether perioperative cerebral NIRS monitoring and the subsequent treatment strategies are of benefit to patients. To assess the effects of perioperative cerebral NIRS monitoring and corresponding treatment strategies in adults and children, compared with blinded or no cerebral oxygenation monitoring, or cerebral oxygenation monitoring based on non-NIRS technologies, on the detection of cerebral oxygen desaturation events (CDEs), neurological outcomes, non-neurological outcomes and socioeconomic impact (including cost of hospitalization and length of hospital stay). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 12), Embase (1974 to 20 December 2016) and MEDLINE (PubMed) (1975 to 20 December 2016). We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing studies on 20 December 2016. We updated this search in November 2017, but these results have not yet been incorporated in the review. We imposed no language restriction. We included all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) dealing with the use of cerebral NIRS in the perioperative setting (during the operation and within 72 hours after the operation), including the operating room, the postanaesthesia care unit and the intensive care unit. Two authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. As we expected clinical and methodological heterogeneity between studies, we employed a random-effects model for analyses and we examined the data for heterogeneity (I2 statistic). We created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADEpro. We included 15 studies in the review, comprising a total of 1822 adult participants. There are 12 studies awaiting classification, and eight ongoing studies.None of the 15 included studies considered the paediatric population. Four studies were conducted in the abdominal and orthopaedic surgery setting (lumbar spine, or knee and hip replacement), one study in the carotid endarterectomy setting, and the remaining 10 studies in the aortic or cardiac surgery setting. The main sources of bias in the included studies related to potential conflict of interest from industry sponsorship, unclear blinding status or missing participant data.Two studies with 312 participants considered postoperative neurological injury, however no pooled effect estimate could be calculated due to discordant direction of effect between studies (low-quality evidence). One study (N = 126) in participants undergoing major abdominal surgery reported that 4/66 participants experienced neurological injury with blinded monitoring versus 0/56 in the active monitoring group. A second study (N = 195) in participants having coronary artery bypass surgery reported that 1/96 participants experienced neurological injury in the blinded monitoring group compared with 4/94 participants in the active monitoring group.We are uncertain whether active cerebral NIRS monitoring has an important effect on the risk of postoperative stroke because of the low number of events and wide confidence interval (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.20; 2 studies, 240 participants; low-quality evidence).We are uncertain whether active cerebral NIRS monitoring has an important effect on postoperative delirium because of the wide confidence interval (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.45; 1 study, 190 participants; low-quality evidence).Two studies with 126 participants showed that active cerebral NIRS monitoring may reduce the incidence of mild postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) as defined by the original studies at one week after surgery (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.95, I2 = 49%, low-quality evidence).Based on six studies with 962 participants, there was moderate-quality evidence that active cerebral oxygenation monitoring probably does not decrease the occurrence of POCD (decline in cognitive function) at one week after surgery (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.04, I2 = 80%). The different type of monitoring equipment in one study could potentially be the cause of the heterogeneity.We are uncertain whether active cerebral NIRS monitoring has an important effect on intraoperative mortality or postoperative mortality because of the low number of events and wide confidence interval (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.08 to 5.03, I2= 0%; 3 studies, 390 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no evidence to determine whether routine use of NIRS-based cerebral oxygenation monitoring causes adverse effects. The effects of perioperative active cerebral NIRS monitoring of brain oxygenation in adults for reducing the occurrence of short-term, mild POCD are uncertain due to the low quality of the evidence. There is uncertainty as to whether active cerebral NIRS monitoring has an important effect on postoperative stroke, delirium or death because of the low number of events and wide confidence intervals. The conclusions of this review may change when the eight ongoing studies are published and the 12 studies awaiting assessment are classified. More RCTs performed in the paediatric population and high-risk patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery (e.g. neurosurgery, carotid endarterectomy and other surgery) are needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 142 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 18%
Researcher 18 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Student > Postgraduate 10 7%
Other 28 20%
Unknown 29 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 11%
Neuroscience 8 6%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 44 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 24 January 2019.
All research outputs
#3,745,583
of 14,185,573 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,580
of 10,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,241
of 357,919 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#134
of 201 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,185,573 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,878 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 357,919 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 201 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.