Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 389

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Anaesthetic depth and delirium after major surgery: a randomised clinical trial

Open access
Evered, Lisbeth A., Chan, Matthew T.V., Han, Ruquan, Chu, Mandy H.M., Cheng, Benny P., Scott, David A., Pryor, Kane O., Sessler, Daniel I., Veselis, Robert, Frampton, Christopher, Sumner, Matthew, Ayeni, Ade, Myles, Paul S., Campbell, Douglas, Leslie, Kate, Short, Timothy G.·2021·British Journal of Anaesthesia

Abstract

BACKGROUND Postoperative delirium is a serious complication of surgery associated with prolonged hospitalisation, long-term cognitive decline, and mortality. This study aimed to determine whether targeting bispectral index (BIS) readings of 50 (light anaesthesia) was associated with a lower incidence of POD than targeting BIS readings of 35 (deep anaesthesia). METHODS This multicentre randomised clinical trial of 655 at-risk patients undergoing major surgery from eight centres in three countries assessed delirium for 5 days postoperatively using the 3 min confusion assessment method (3D-CAM) or CAM-ICU, and cognitive screening using the Mini-Mental State Examination at baseline and discharge and the Abbreviated Mental Test score (AMTS) at 30 days and 1 yr. Patients were assigned to light or deep anaesthesia. The primary outcome was the presence of postoperative delirium on any of the first 5 postoperative days. Secondary outcomes included mortality at 1 yr, cognitive decline at discharge, cognitive impairment at 30 days and 1 yr, unplanned ICU admission, length of stay, and time in electroencephalographic burst suppression. RESULTS The incidence of postoperative delirium in the BIS 50 group was 19% and in the BIS 35 group was 28% (odds ratio 0.58 [95% confidence interval: 0.38-0.88]; P=0.010). At 1 yr, those in the BIS 50 group demonstrated significantly better cognitive function than those in the BIS 35 group (9% with AMTS ≤6 vs 20%; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Among patients undergoing major surgery, targeting light anaesthesia reduced the risk of postoperative delirium and cognitive impairment at 1 yr. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION ACTRN12612000632897.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bja.2021.07.021

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 22 references

Metadata

Authors
Evered, L. A., Chan, M. T. V., Han, R., Chu, M. H. M., Cheng, B. P., Scott, D. A., Pryor, K. O., Sessler, D. I., Veselis, R., Frampton, C., Sumner, M., Ayeni, A., Myles, P. S., Campbell, D., Leslie, K., & Short, T. G.
Venue
British Journal of Anaesthesia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-11
Volume
127
Issue
5
Pages
704-712
ISSN
0007-0912 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3197314412
Cited by
389
References
22
FWCI
34.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Anaesthetic depth and delirium after major surgery: a randomised clinical trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.bja.2021.07.021
The paper
Evered, L. A., Chan, M. T. V., Han, R., Chu, M. H. M., Cheng, B. P., Scott, D. A., Pryor, K. O., Sessler, D. I., Veselis, R., Frampton, C., Sumner, M., Ayeni, A., Myles, P. S., Campbell, D., Leslie, K., & Short, T. G. (2021). Anaesthetic depth and delirium after major surgery: a randomised clinical trial. British Journal of Anaesthesia. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2021.07.021

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.