Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 975

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Anesthesia Awareness and the Bispectral Index

Open access
Avidan, Michael S., Zhang, Lini, Burnside, Beth A., Finkel, Kevin J., Searleman, Adam C., Selvidge, Jacqueline A., Saager, Leif, Turner, Michelle S., Rao, Srikar, Bottros, Michael, Hantler, Charles, Jacobsohn, Eric, Evers, Alex S.·2008·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Awareness during anesthesia is a serious complication with potential long-term psychological consequences. Use of the bispectral index (BIS), developed from a processed electroencephalogram, has been reported to decrease the incidence of anesthesia awareness when the BIS value is maintained below 60. In this trial, we sought to determine whether a BIS-based protocol is better than a protocol based on a measurement of end-tidal anesthetic gas (ETAG) for decreasing anesthesia awareness in patients at high risk for this complication. METHODS: We randomly assigned 2000 patients to BIS-guided anesthesia (target BIS range, 40 to 60) or ETAG-guided anesthesia (target ETAG range, 0.7 to 1.3 minimum alveolar concentration [MAC]). Postoperatively, patients were assessed for anesthesia awareness at three intervals (0 to 24 hours, 24 to 72 hours, and 30 days after extubation). RESULTS: We assessed 967 and 974 patients from the BIS and ETAG groups, respectively. Two cases of definite anesthesia awareness occurred in each group (absolute difference, 0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.56 to 0.57%). The BIS value was greater than 60 in one case of definite anesthesia awareness, and the ETAG concentrations were less than 0.7 MAC in three cases. For all patients, the mean (+/-SD) time-averaged ETAG concentration was 0.81+/-0.25 MAC in the BIS group and 0.82+/-0.23 MAC in the ETAG group (P=0.10; 95% CI for the difference between the BIS and ETAG groups, -0.04 to 0.01 MAC). CONCLUSIONS: We did not reproduce the results of previous studies that reported a lower incidence of anesthesia awareness with BIS monitoring, and the use of the BIS protocol was not associated with reduced administration of volatile anesthetic gases. Anesthesia awareness occurred even when BIS values and ETAG concentrations were within the target ranges. Our findings do not support routine BIS monitoring as part of standard practice. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00281489 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

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 · 10.1056/nejmoa0707361

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 975

Metadata

Authors
Avidan, M. S., Zhang, L., Burnside, B. A., Finkel, K. J., Searleman, A. C., Selvidge, J. A., Saager, L., Turner, M. S., Rao, S., Bottros, M., Hantler, C., Jacobsohn, E., & Evers, A. S.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2008-03-13
Volume
358
Issue
11
Pages
1097-1108
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2003269031
Cited by
975
References
1
FWCI
69.17
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: Anesthesia Awareness and the Bispectral Index. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa0707361
The paper
Avidan, M. S., Zhang, L., Burnside, B. A., Finkel, K. J., Searleman, A. C., Selvidge, J. A., Saager, L., Turner, M. S., Rao, S., Bottros, M., Hantler, C., Jacobsohn, E., & Evers, A. S. (2008). Anesthesia Awareness and the Bispectral Index. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa0707361

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.