Home › Research › Clinical safety
Processed electroencephalogram and evoked potential techniques for amelioration of postoperative delirium and cognitive dysfunction following non-cardiac and non-neurosurgical procedures in adults
Punjasawadwong Y, Chau-In W, Laopaiboon M, Punjasawadwong S, Pin-On P.. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2018-05-15
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
- 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).
Study details
- Participants2,929
- Effect sizeRR 0.71; RR 0.84; RR 0.30
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 84/100
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.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| 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}
}