MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412786958 · doi:10.36283/ziun-pjmd14-3/075

Perioperative Cognitive Dysfunction: Comparative Evaluation of Anesthetic Agents and Neurocognitive Outcomes in Elderly Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4412786958 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Farah Niaz Awan, Muhammad Ajmal Zahid, Muhammad Akram Ramzan

Bibliographic record

VenuePakistan Journal of Medicine and Dentistry · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurocognitivePerioperativeMeta-analysisAnestheticCognitionMedicinePsychologyIntensive care medicineAnesthesiaClinical psychologyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The occurrence of perioperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) affects many elderly surgical patients in their postoperative period, notwithstanding worries about enduring issues caused by distinct anesthetic methods. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effects of the various types of anesthesia agents and procedures on postoperative cognitive dysfunction among adult surgical patients. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis follow PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The following randomized and observational studies assessing postoperative cognitive outcomes were searched in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar up to May 2025. To determine risk of bias, the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool on RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) on observational studies were used. The degree of confidence of the included outcomes was measured with the GRADE framework. The meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4.1, and heterogeneity (I2) was also assessed. Results: Ten studies, including 1,170 participants, have been analyzed, and the majority of comparisons made are the effect of anesthetic agents on postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD). Other agents, such as remimazolam, scopolamine, and S-ketamine, produced better cognitive results as compared to others that did not produce significant results. Cognitive scores were found not to be statistically different between treatments (SMD: -0.57, 95% CI: -1.51 to 0.36) and had a high heterogeneity (I2 = 94%). Discussion: Some of these anesthetic agents, like remimazolam, S-ketamine, and scopolamine, have promising results in the prevention of early postoperative cognitive dysfunction, but the overall evidence is at the same time inconsistent. Meta-analysis failed to execute expressions of meaningful cognitive effects throughout habitations, stressing the importance of standard cognitive evaluations and future high-quality tests. There is a tendency towards high levels of heterogeneity and variability in cognitive outcome measures, and hence, the limited generalizability.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.652
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePakistan Journal of Medicine and DentistrySame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207