Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 312

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Post-Operative Cognitive Dysfunction: An exploration of the inflammatory hypothesis and novel therapies

Open access
Skvarc, David R., Berk, Michael, Byrne, Linda K., Dean, Olivia M., Dodd, Seetal, Lewis, Matthew, Marriott, Andrew, Moore, Eileen M., Morris, Gerwyn, Page, Richard S., Gray, Laura·2018·Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
DOI 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.11.011
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

HighlightsPost‐operative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is an established risk of surgery.The proposed feed‐forward inflammatory process of POCD is well supported.Perioperative use of COX‐II inhibitors and dexmedetomidine preserves cognition.Evidence for other agents is thin and heterogeneous. ABSTRACT Post‐Operative Cognitive Dysfunction (POCD) is a highly prevalent condition with significant clinical, social and financial impacts for patients and their communities. The underlying pathophysiology is becoming increasingly understood, with the role of neuroinflammation and oxidative stress secondary to surgery and anaesthesia strongly implicated. This review aims to describe the putative mechanisms by which surgery‐induced inflammation produces cognitive sequelae, with a focus on identifying potential novel therapies based upon their ability to modify these pathways.

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.neubiorev.2017.11.011

Cites

29 of 29 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

Cited by

See all 312

Metadata

Authors
Skvarc, D. R., Berk, M., Byrne, L. K., Dean, O. M., Dodd, S., Lewis, M., Marriott, A., Moore, E. M., Morris, G., Page, R. S., & Gray, L.
Venue
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-01
Volume
84
Pages
116-133
ISSN
0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.11.011
OpenAlex
W2770331037
Cited by
312
References
29
FWCI
7.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

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.