The role of intraoperative hypotension on the development of postoperative cognitive dysfunction: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To clarify whether intraoperative hypotension contributes to the development of postoperative cognitive dysfunction. DESIGN: A systematic review of prospective studies reporting on intraoperative hypotension and postoperative cognitive dysfunction in elective, non-cognitive impaired, adult surgical patients. PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched up to the 1st of January 2021. SETTING: Studies had to use a clear definition of hypotension, although differing definitions were accepted. Neurocognitive tests to determine postoperative cognitive dysfunction had to be done pre- and postoperatively, with a minimum follow-up of seven days postoperatively. MEASUREMENTS: Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. MAIN RESULTS: Out of 941 studies screened, five randomized controlled trials and four cohort studies were included for qualitative analysis. Extensive methodological differences between studies were present hindering proper quantitive analysis. No studies reported statistically significant differences in incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction in hypo- compared to normotensive patients. Five studies reported exact incidences of postoperative cognitive dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review showed no conclusive association between intraoperative hypotension and the development of postoperative cognitive dysfunction. Given the vast methodological differences of the included studies, the role of intraoperative hypotension in the development of postoperative cognitive dysfunction remains uncertain. Future research into the association between intraoperative hypotension and postoperative cognitive dysfunction should be conducted in a standardized manner.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".