↓ Skip to main content

Processed electroencephalogram and evoked potential techniques for amelioration of postoperative delirium and cognitive dysfunction following non-cardiac and non-neurosurgical procedures in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2018
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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 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
Processed electroencephalogram and evoked potential techniques for amelioration of postoperative delirium and cognitive dysfunction following non-cardiac and non-neurosurgical procedures in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011283.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yodying Punjasawadwong, Waraporn Chau-in, Malinee Laopaiboon, Sirivimol Punjasawadwong, Pathomporn Pin-on

Abstract

Postoperative delirium (POD) and postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) may complicate a patient's postoperative recovery in several ways. Monitoring of processed electroencephalogram (EEG) or evoked potential (EP) indices may prevent or minimize POD and POCD, probably through optimization of anaesthetic doses. To assess whether the use of processed EEG or auditory evoked potential (AEP) indices (bispectral index (BIS), narcotrend index, cerebral state index, state entropy and response entropy, patient state index, index of consciousness, A-line autoregressive index, and auditory evoked potentials (AEP index)) as guides to anaesthetic delivery can reduce the risk of POD and POCD in non-cardiac surgical or non-neurosurgical adult patients undergoing general anaesthesia compared with standard practice where only clinical signs are used. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trial registry databases up to 28 March 2017. We updated this search in February 2018, but these results have not been incorporated in the review. We included randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing any method of processed EEG or evoked potential techniques (entropy, BIS, AEP etc.) against a control group where clinical signs were used to guide doses of anaesthetics in adults aged 18 years or over undergoing general anaesthesia for non-cardiac or non-neurosurgical elective operations. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were: occurrence of POD; and occurrence of POCD. Secondary outcomes included: all-cause mortality; any postoperative complications; and postoperative length of stay. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome. We included six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 2929 participants comparing processed EEG or EP indices-guided anaesthesia with clinical signs-guided anaesthesia. There are five ongoing studies and one study awaiting classification.Anaesthesia administration guided by the indices from a processed EEG (bispectral index) probably reduces the risk of POD within seven days after surgery with risk ratio (RR) of 0.71 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.85; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 17, 95% CI 11 to 34; 2197 participants; 3 RCTs; moderate quality of evidence). Three trials also showed the lower rate of POCD at 12 weeks after surgery (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.96; NNTB 38, 95% CI 21 to 289; 2051 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but it is uncertain whether processed EEG indices reduce POCD at one week (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.02; 3 trials; 1989 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and at 52 weeks (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.80; 1 trial; 59 participants; very low quality of evidence). There may be little or no effect on all-cause mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.64; 1 trial; 1155 participants; low-quality evidence). One trial suggested a lower risk of any postoperative complications with processed EEG (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.71; 902 participants, moderate-quality evidence). There may be little or no effect on reduced postoperative length of stay (mean difference -0.2 days, 95% CI -2.02 to 1.62; 1155 participants; low-quality evidence). There is moderate-quality evidence that optimized anaesthesia guided by processed EEG indices could reduce the risk of postoperative delirium in patients aged 60 years or over undergoing non-cardiac surgical and non-neurosurgical procedures. We found moderate-quality evidence that postoperative cognitive dysfunction at three months could be reduced in these patients. The effect on POCD at one week and over one year after surgery is uncertain. There are no data available for patients under 60 years. Further blinded randomized controlled trials are needed to elucidate strategies for the amelioration of postoperative delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction, and their consequences such as dementia (including Alzheimer's disease (AD)) in both non-elderly (below 60 years) and elderly (60 years or over) adult patients. The one study awaiting classification and five ongoing studies may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 135 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 13%
Student > Master 17 13%
Student > Bachelor 16 12%
Other 12 9%
Other 29 21%
Unknown 26 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 13%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Psychology 4 3%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 37 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 05 February 2019.
All research outputs
#931,236
of 14,337,811 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,795
of 10,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,794
of 276,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#75
of 183 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,337,811 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,948 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 276,275 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 183 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 59% of its contemporaries.