Home › Research › Prevention trials
Current perspectives on postoperative cognitive dysfunction in geriatric patients: insights from clinical practice
Zhang L, Qiu Y, Zhang ZF, Zhao YF, Ding YM.. Frontiers in medicine, 2024-09-27
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is a common and serious postoperative complication in elderly patients, affecting cognitive function and quality of life. Its pathophysiology is complex, involving age-related cognitive decline, surgical and anesthetic factors, systemic and neuroinflammation, as well as genetic and environmental contributors. Comprehensive preoperative assessment and optimization, the selection of appropriate anesthetic agents, minimally invasive surgical techniques, and early postoperative rehabilitation and cognitive training are effective strategies to reduce the incidence of POCD. Recent research suggests that anti-inflammatory drugs and neuroprotective agents may be promising in preventing POCD. Additionally, non-pharmacological interventions, including cognitive and physical training, have shown positive effects. Future research directions should include large-scale clinical trials and mechanistic studies to further understand and manage POCD, along with integrating new findings into clinical practice. Continuous education and training for healthcare professionals are essential to ensure the effective application of the latest research findings in patient care. Through multidisciplinary collaboration and ongoing improvements, these efforts can significantly enhance the cognitive function and quality of life of elderly surgical patients.
Key findings
- Recent research suggests that anti-inflammatory drugs and neuroprotective agents may be promising in preventing POCD.
- Through multidisciplinary collaboration and ongoing improvements, these efforts can significantly enhance the cognitive function and quality of life of elderly surgical patients.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 45/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in medicine) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 39399113) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 26 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100. |
| Total | 45 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Zhang, L., Qiu, Y., Zhang, Z. F., Zhao, Y. F., & Ding, Y. M. (2024). Current perspectives on postoperative cognitive dysfunction in geriatric patients: insights from clinical practice. Frontiers in medicine. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1466681
Vancouver
Zhang L, Qiu Y, Zhang ZF, Zhao YF, Ding YM. Current perspectives on postoperative cognitive dysfunction in geriatric patients: insights from clinical practice. Frontiers in medicine. 2024. doi:10.3389/fmed.2024.1466681. PMID: 39399113.
BibTeX
@article{zhang2024-39399113,
author = {Zhang, L. and Qiu, Y. and Zhang, Z. F. and Zhao, Y. F. and Ding, Y. M.},
title = {{Current perspectives on postoperative cognitive dysfunction in geriatric patients: insights from clinical practice}},
journal = {Frontiers in medicine},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.3389/fmed.2024.1466681},
pmid = {39399113},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1466681}
}