MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210493071 · doi:10.1097/as9.0000000000000130

The Effects of Dexmedetomidine on Perioperative Neurocognitive Outcomes After Noncardiac Surgery

2022· article· en· W4210493071 on OpenAlexaff
Amara Singh, Jeremy Broad, Connor T. A. Brenna, Lilia Kaustov, Stephen Choi

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Surgery Open · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDexmedetomidineMedicinePerioperativeDeliriumPlaceboRandomized controlled trialNeurocognitiveAnesthesiaCognitionIncidence (geometry)Cochrane LibraryInternal medicineIntensive care medicinePsychiatrySedation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The purpose of this review is to examine the effect of dexmedetomidine on delayed neurocognitive recovery (dNCR; cognitive dysfunction ≥1 week postoperative) after major noncardiac surgery. Background: Dexmedetomidine (DEX) effectively reduces delirium in the intensive care unit and reportedly attenuates cognitive decline following major noncardiac surgery. Ascertaining the true effect on postoperative cognition is difficult because studies are limited by suboptimal selection of cognitive assessment tools, timing of testing, and criteria for defining significant cognitive decline Methods: Prospective randomized trials comparing perioperative DEX to placebo for major noncardiac surgery assessing cognitive function ≥1 week postoperative were included. Pediatric, nonhuman, and non-English trials, and those where executive function was not assessed were excluded. Data were abstracted by 3 reviewers independently and in parallel according to PRISMA guidelines. The a priori binary primary outcome is dNCR defined as cognitive function declining by the minimal clinically important difference or accepted alternate measure (eg, Reliable Change Index ≥1.96). Bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Data were pooled using a random effects model. Results: Among 287 citations identified, 26 (9%) met criteria for full-text retrieval. Eleven randomized trials (1233 participants) were included for qualitative analysis, and 7 trials (616 participants) were included for meta-analysis of dNCR. Dexmedetomidine did not reduce the incidence of dNCR significantly (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.30–1.10, P = 0.09) compared with placebo. There was no difference in the incidence of delirium (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.55–1.63, P = 0.83) and a higher incidence of hemodynamic instability (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.22–3.65, P = 0.008). Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine does not reduce dNCR 1 week after major noncardiac surgery. This meta-analysis does not yet support the use of perioperative DEX to improve short term cognitive outcomes at this time; trials underway may yet change this conclusion while larger trials are needed to refine the point estimate of effect and examine long-term cognitive outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.008
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Surgery OpenSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207