Neuroprotective Effects of Magnesium Sulphate in Anesthesia and Neurocritical Care Settings: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Magnesium sulphate (MgSO₄) is increasingly recognized for its anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective properties, making it a promising adjunct in neuroanesthesia and neurocritical care. Its pharmacological actions—such as NMDA receptor antagonism, calcium channel blockade, and modulation of inflammatory pathways—may contribute to improved patient outcomes. This systematic review evaluates current evidence on the role of MgSO₄ in neuroanesthesia and neurocritical care settings. Methods A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, and ScienceDirect, from inception until April 18, 2025 for studies evaluating the effects of MgSO₄ in adult patients undergoing neurosurgical procedures or treated in neurocritical care. Outcomes of interest included neurological recovery, cerebral vasospasm, delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI), postoperative opioid requirements, hemodynamic stability, and adverse events. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results Ten studies were included in this review. MgSO₄ administration was consistently associated with improved neurological recovery, as indicated by better modified Rankin Scale scores. Several trials reported a significant reduction in the incidence of cerebral vasospasm and DCI among MgSO₄-treated patients. Magnesium also demonstrated analgesic benefits, with reduced postoperative opioid requirements and pain scores. Hemodynamic stability was enhanced in the magnesium groups across multiple studies. Importantly, no significant increase in adverse events was reported, supporting the safety of MgSO₄ in this context. Conclusion This systematic review supports the potential of MgSO₄ as a safe and effective adjunct in neuroanesthesia and neurocritical care. Its anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective effects appear to translate into meaningful clinical benefits.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".