The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A comparison of spectral edge, delta power, and bispectral index as EEG measures of alfentanil, propofol, and midazolam drug effect*
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effects of anesthetic drugs on electroencephalograms (EEG) have been studied to develop the EEG as a measure of anesthetic depth. Bispectral analysis is a new quantitative technique that measures the consistency of the phase and power relationships and returns a single measure, the bispectral index. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of the bispectral index, version 1.1, with other spectral analysis EEG measures of drug effect for three commonly used anesthetic drugs. METHODS: The EEG waveforms from 31 adults receiving infusions of alfentanil, propofol, or midazolam were analyzed. The time course of spectral edge (SE95), relative power in delta band, and bispectral index were related to the estimated effect-site concentration with use of a sigmoidal Emax model to estimate the potency (IC50) and the plasma effect-site equilibration rate constant (Ke0) for each measure. The performance of the fitting was assessed by the coefficient of correlation between predicted and observed effect. RESULTS: Alfentanil induced a high-amplitude low-frequency EEG response. Propofol induced a biphasic response. At low concentrations, both frequency and amplitude increased. When the concentration increased, the EEG slowed and the amplitude decreased. High concentration produced burst suppression. Midazolam increased EEG frequency and amplitude. Bispectral index, SE95, and delta power yield similar estimates of IC50 and ke0. Except for alfentanil, the performance of the modeling with the bispectral index was as good that with SE95 or delta power. CONCLUSION: Bispectral analysis can be used as a measure of the EEG effects of anesthetic drugs.
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
Cited by
Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of propofol
Sahinovic, M. M., Struys, M. M. R. F., & Absalom, A. R. (2018) · Clinical Pharmacokinetics · doi:10.1007/s40262-018-0672-3 · Cited by 809
Development and Clinical Application of Electroencephalographic Bispectrum Monitoring
Johansen, J. W., Sebel, P. S., & Fisher, D. M. (2000) · Anesthesiology · doi:10.1097/00000542-200011000-00029 · Cited by 599
Pharmacokinetic models for propofol—defining and illuminating the devil in the detail
Absalom, A. R., Mani, V., De Smet, T., & Struys, M. M. R. F. (2009) · British Journal of Anaesthesia · doi:10.1093/bja/aep143 · Cited by 435
Guignard, B., Menigaux, C., Dupont, X., Fletcher, D., & Chauvin, M. (2000) · Anesthesia & Analgesia · doi:10.1097/00000539-200001000-00034 · Cited by 360
Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Modeling in Drug Development
Sheiner, L. B., & Steimer, J.-L. (2000) · Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology · doi:10.1146/annurev.pharmtox.40.1.67 · Cited by 351
Metadata
- Authors
- Billard, V., Gambus, P. L., Chamoun, N., Stanski, D. R., & Shafer, S. L.
- Venue
- Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1997-01
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 45-58
- ISSN
- 0009-9236 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-6535
- OpenAlex
- W2086407528
- Cited by
- 270
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.29
- 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: A comparison of spectral edge, delta power, and bispectral index as EEG measures of alfentanil, propofol, and midazolam drug effect*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0009-9236(97)90181-8
- The paper
- Billard, V., Gambus, P. L., Chamoun, N., Stanski, D. R., & Shafer, S. L. (1997). A comparison of spectral edge, delta power, and bispectral index as EEG measures of alfentanil, propofol, and midazolam drug effect*. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0009-9236(97)90181-8
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.