The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cognitive effects after epidural vs general anesthesia in older adults. A randomized trial
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of epidural vs general anesthesia on the incidence of long-term cognitive dysfunction after total knee replacement surgery in older adults. DESIGN: Randomized controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Orthopedic specialty academic hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 262 patients undergoing elective primary total knee replacement with a median age of 69 years; 70% women. INTERVENTION: Random assignment to either epidural or general anesthesia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A thorough neuropsychological assessment was performed preoperatively and repeated at 1 week and 6 months postoperatively. Cognitive outcome was assessed by within-patient change on 10 tests of memory, psychomotor, and language skills. Prospective standardized surveillance for cardiovascular complications was performed to allow simultaneous assessment of anesthetic effects on cognitive and cardiovascular outcomes. RESULTS: The two groups were similar at baseline in terms of age, sex, comorbidity, and cognitive function. There were no significant differences between the epidural and general anesthesia groups in within-subject change from baseline on any of the 10 cognitive test results at either 1 week or 6 months. Overall, 5% of patients showed a long-term clinically significant deterioration in cognitive function. There was no difference between the anesthesia groups in the incidence of major cardiovascular complications (3% overall). CONCLUSIONS: The type of anesthesia, general or epidural, does not affect the magnitude or pattern of postoperative cognitive dysfunction or the incidence of major cardiovascular complications in older adults undergoing elective total knee replacement. This is the largest trial of the effects of general vs regional anesthesia on cerebral function reported to date, with more than 99% power to detect a clinically significant difference on any of the neuropsychological tests.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Controversy in Counting and Attributing Events in Clinical Trials
Sackett, D. L., & Gent, M. (1979) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm197912273012602 · Cited by 413
Cited by
Rodgers, A. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7275.1493 · Cited by 2,114
Predictors of Cognitive Dysfunction after Major Noncardiac Surgery
Monk, T. G., Weldon, B. C., Garvan, C. W., Dede, D. E., van der Aa, M. T., Heilman, K. M., & Gravenstein, J. S. (2008) · Anesthesiology · doi:10.1097/01.anes.0000296071.19434.1e · Cited by 1,534
Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.294.2.218 · Cited by 1,465
Is Diabetes Associated With Cognitive Impairment and Cognitive Decline Among Older Women?
Gregg, E. W. (2000) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.160.2.174 · Cited by 521
Lasting impact of general anaesthesia on the brain: mechanisms and relevance
Vutskits, L., & Xie, Z. (2016) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn.2016.128 · Cited by 486
Metadata
- Authors
- Williams-Russo, P. G.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association
- Published
- 1995-07-05
- Volume
- 274
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 44-50
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4249731728
- Cited by
- 416
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cognitive effects after epidural vs general anesthesia in older adults. A randomized trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.274.1.44
- The paper
- Williams-Russo, P. G. (1995). Cognitive effects after epidural vs general anesthesia in older adults. A randomized trial. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.274.1.44
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.