MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285386270 · doi:10.1097/ana.0000000000000861

Current Recommendations for Perioperative Brain Health: A Scoping Review

2022· review· en· W4285386270 on OpenAlexaff
Denise J. Wooding, Thalia S. Field, Stephan Schwarz, Su-Yin MacDonell, J. B. Farmer, Suja S. Rajan, Alana M. Flexman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaProvidence Health Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePerioperativeNeurocognitiveDeliriumStroke (engine)Intensive care medicinePostoperative cognitive dysfunctionPsychiatryCognitionAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Perioperative complications such as stroke, delirium, and neurocognitive dysfunction are common and responsible for increased morbidity and mortality. Our objective was to characterize and synthesize the contemporary guidelines on perioperative brain health for noncardiac, non-neurologic surgery in a scoping review. We performed a structured search for articles providing recommendations on brain health published between 2016 and 2021 and included the following complications: perioperative stroke and perioperative neurocognitive disorders, the latter of which encompasses postoperative delirium and a spectrum of postoperative cognitive dysfunction. We categorized recommendations by subtopic (stroke, postoperative delirium, postoperative cognitive dysfunction), type (disclosure/ethics/policies, prevention, risk stratification, screening/diagnosis, and management), and pharmacological versus nonpharmacological strategies. We noted country of origin, specialty of the authors, evidence grade (if available), and concordance/discordance between recommendations. Eight publications provided 129 recommendations, originating from the United States (n=5), Europe (n=1), United Kingdom (n=1), and China (n=1). Three publications (37%) applied grading of evidence as follows: Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE): A, 30%; B, 36%; C, 30%; D, 4%. We identified 42 instances of concordant recommendations (≥2 publications) on 15 themes, including risk factor identification, risk disclosure, baseline neurocognitive testing, nonpharmacological perioperative neurocognitive disorder prevention, intraoperative monitoring to prevent perioperative neurocognitive disorders, avoidance of benzodiazepines, delaying elective surgery after stroke, and emergency imaging and rapid restoration of cerebral perfusion after perioperative stroke. We identified 19 instances of discordant recommendations on 7 themes, including the use of regional anesthesia and monitoring for perioperative stroke prevention, pharmacological perioperative neurocognitive disorder management, and postoperative stroke screening. We synthesized recommendations for clinical practice and highlighted areas where high-quality evidence is required to inform best practices in perioperative brain health.

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)0.055
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.188
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0550.188
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.009
Bibliometrics0.0350.024
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.214
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosurgical AnesthesiologySame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207