Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 84 out of 100. Clinical safety

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Objectives 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 updated this search in February 2018, but these results have not been incorporated in the review. Main results We included six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 2929 participants comparing processed EEG or EP indices-guided anaesthesia with clinical signs-guided anaesthesia. 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). 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). We found moderate-quality evidence that postoperative cognitive dysfunction at three months could be reduced in these patients.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 84/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 9 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 12 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 3 of 4; Effect reported 3 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 49 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 84 of 100. Total 84 of 100.49 of the 58 points we could judge = 84 of 100

Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. 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 49 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 84 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 9 / 10 Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (The Cochrane database of systematic reviews)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 12 / 12 A systematic review of all the studies on the question (from PubMed type “Systematic Review”)
Strength of evidence 5 / 5 Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 2 / 5 2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 3 / 4 2,929 participants
Effect reported 3 / 3 Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar)
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here
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 29761891)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 49 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 49 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 84 out of 100.
Total 84 / 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

Punjasawadwong, Y., Chau-In, W., Laopaiboon, M., Punjasawadwong, S., & Pin-On, P. (2018). Processed electroencephalogram and evoked potential techniques for amelioration of postoperative delirium and cognitive dysfunction following non-cardiac and non-neurosurgical procedures in adults. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd011283.pub2

Vancouver

Punjasawadwong Y, Chau-In W, Laopaiboon M, Punjasawadwong S, Pin-On P. Processed electroencephalogram and evoked potential techniques for amelioration of postoperative delirium and cognitive dysfunction following non-cardiac and non-neurosurgical procedures in adults. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2018. doi:10.1002/14651858.cd011283.pub2. PMID: 29761891.

BibTeX

@article{punjasawadwong2018-29761891,
  author  = {Punjasawadwong, Y. and Chau-In, W. and Laopaiboon, M. and Punjasawadwong, S. and Pin-On, P.},
  title   = {{Processed electroencephalogram and evoked potential techniques for amelioration of postoperative delirium and cognitive dysfunction following non-cardiac and non-neurosurgical procedures in adults}},
  journal = {The Cochrane database of systematic reviews},
  year    = {2018},
  doi     = {10.1002/14651858.cd011283.pub2},
  pmid    = {29761891},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd011283.pub2}
}

Related studies in Clinical safety

Similar studies

More on Clinical safety

See all studies in Clinical safety →